December 27, 2018--Trump Tower Istanbul

People are wondering why Trump is so responsive to anything the Turkish president suggests. 

Especially how, after only a brief conversation on the telephone with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Trump "impulsively" reversed U.S. military policy in Syria and decided to withdraw all American troops, who have been allied with the Kurds, our closest partner in the region, and with whom we have been decimating ISIS fighters.

So outraged about this whipsaw change, Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, who was not consulted by Trump, resigned in open protest.

How could Trump so cavalierly reverse a policy that at relatively low cost in material and casualties ("only" five American troops have been killed in more than four years of fighting) how can such a policy be ended so abruptly after just a few minutes on the phone with Erdoğan, abandoning the field of battle to the Russians, Syria's Bashar al-Assad's butchers, Iran, Hezbollah, and ISIS, which still has at least 15,000 fighters in the region?

The answer is simple. As with so much that Trump initiates, it's all about money. Trump's money. In this case, how much he is making from real estate interests and who knows what else in Turkey, which, in Istanbul, includes a Trump Tower.

It is a twin-tower monstrosity. One tower is an office complex, the other a residential condo with 200 residences. It also includes a shopping mall with 80 shops and a multiplex cinema. These are the first Trump Towers built in Europe.

Most interesting, though, is Trump's principal business partner--

He is billionaire Aydin Doğan. He heads Turkey's largest conglomerate, Doğan Holdings, which includes ventures in energy, media, trade, and tourism in addition to a real estate empire.

As well known in Turkey as he is for his wealth and power is his tendency to evade taxation. For example, his media company, Doğan Media Holding, in 2009 was forced to pay a tax fine of about 3.8 billion Turkish Lira (nearly $2.53 billion dollars).

Sound familiar? Though this only begins to suggest how entangled Trump might be in things Turkish. Could it be that the Turks, whose intelligence operation is world class, like the Russians, who also seem to be able to make Trump dance on a string, have some goods on him?

It would help explain Trump's impulsive response to Erdoğan's "request" that he pull all 2,000 of our troops out of Syria so the Turks can focus on wiping out our erstwhile allies, the Kurds.

As prosecutors are wont to say, "Follow the money,"

April 17, 2018--Fallout

I have been hearing from angry friends all morning. They are angry with me, actually most are furious with me for agreeing with the likes of Ann Coulter, criticizing the weekend missile strike in Syria.

One said, "So it's OK with you to let Assad get away with using poison gas to kill his people? Did you see those videos of children, babies gasping for their last breath as they vomited and soon died? I can't believe you wouldn't agree with using a targeted missile strike against his chemical weapons facilitates."

"The strike appeared to turn out well." I agreed, "We seem to have managed to avoid killing any Russians. If we had, who knows where this would have led."

"You're avoiding the issue," my friend pressed on, "Even in warfare there are rules and conventions. Combatants agree not to torture prisoners, engage in ethnic cleansing, or, in this case, not use chemical or biological weapons. There is the Geneva Convention that spells out a lot of this. I can't believe you would have not done anything. What Assad did was barbaric."

"I agree with that too," I tried to say. "I even agree with Trump that Assad is a monster. The last I read, he presided over the slaughter of about 600,000 of his own people. Hundreds of thousands more have been crippled and millions have become refugees."

"And, so, if it was up to you you'd stand back and watch this happen?"

"Though I wouldn't put it quite this way, I must admit I probably would. I would not get involved in what's happening on the ground in Syria, that godforsaken place, any more than I was in favor of invading Iraq or, for that matter, getting involved in Vietnam. Where more than 58,000 of our young people were killed, hundreds of thousands more wounded, and at the end of the day we lost the war. Haven't we learned anything from behaving like the world's policeman?"

"But a tyrant deploying poison gas on his own people is not only against the rules of war--what a concept, war having rules--but monstrous."

"I don't know how to put this," I said, "but what's the difference between using gas to kill babies and blowing them up with conventional weapons? Hideous barrel bombs full of shrapnel is seemingly the weapon of choice in Syria for Assad's air force. This is monstrous too so why not, using your logic, go after his air force and the factories where barrel bombs are assembled?"

"I can't believe your lack of anger or passion about this," my friend said.

"Maybe I've gotten to be too old and seen too much evil in my lifetime. That could be what has made me appear to be inured to barbaric behavior of this kind. About that, guilty as charged. But, still, I am not insensitive to this nor am I seeing your distinctions between poison gas and fragmentation bombs, and I am not convinced it's a good idea for us to try to chase down all the Assads of the world. Sadly, there are too many of them and I don't think it's our role to go after all of them."

"There's a point to what you're saying, but complete hands off when there are holocasts going is also not acceptable. I don't know how to determine where to get involved and when to ignore evil behavior, but a version of America First, or anything that smacks of that is not acceptable to me and shouldn't be to you. I know you were a young boy during the Second World War and were aware even then of Hitler's regime--including how some in your family died in concentration camps--and in later years you knew about other atrocities, but you're opting out now is not attractive or, to me, acceptable."

"I love you a lot," I said, "And respect you. I'll have to do some more thinking about this. One thing I won't concede though--all of this is very complicated and can lead to a lot of hypocritical talk and behavior."

April 16, 2018--Ann Coulter & Me

Tell me I'm hallucinating. 

I woke up Saturday morning to the news that overnight we had bombed a number of chemical weapons sites in Syria. Putting aside for the moment how I feel about that, I thought I heard that Ann Coulter, as well as numerous right-wingers, who I assumed, as hawks, would reflexively call for tough action wherever and whenever, staunchly opposed President Trump's decision to attack military assets of the Assad regime.

I woke up in a hurray and sure enough, with the exception of dead-ender Sean Hannity, pretty much all the talk-radio bloviators, conspiracy theorists, and Fox News hosts and guests were ranting about how Trump violated his campaign pledge to bring all troops home from overseas misadventures, especially those that were involved in "nation building." They reminded Trump about this, since they know he was watching and listening, citing our failed involvements in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region.  

The Hill reported that Fox hosts Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham both claimed that Friday night's attack was inconsistent with what Trump said during the campaign and that it could be "risky" for us, considering the country's experience with the Iraq War.

Well-named Michael Savage, host of the radio show, Savage Nation, tweeted--

"We lost. War machine bombs Syria. No evidence Assad did it. Sad warmongers hijacking our nation."

Warmongers, I assume, including Trump.

Ann Coulter showed her opposition to the missile strike by retweeting postings by other conservatives who condemned the move, citing Trump's past tweets in which he cautioned about military action in Syria.

Infowars conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, broke down in tears on his  talk show when grossly gasping out his opposition to the missile strikes. He said-- 

"If he [Trump] had been a piece of crap from the beginning, it wouldn't be so bad. We've made so many sacrifices [he did not list them] and now he's crapping all over us. It makes me sick."

Best of all, alt-right conspiracy theorist and social media personality, Mike Cernovich, on his men's empowerment website, Danger & Play, posted--

"At least I won't feel bad when he gets impeached."

About that, we agree. As I do with Ann Coulter. 

That is, unless I was hallucinating.

April 13, 2017--Bromance Kaput

The New York Times lead story on Wednesday said it all--"Trump's Sudden Shift on Russia Leaves Heads Spinning."

It referred to the White House's accusation Tuesday that Russia is engaged in a cover-up of the Syrian government's deployment of Sarin gas on its civilian population. This accusation was based on an alleged declassified National Security Council report on the attack which also included a rebuttal of Moscow's assertion that insurgents were responsible for the use of chemical weapons. Trump's people claimed that the Syrians and Russians released "false narratives" to mislead the world community about their own complicitous involvement.

What happened to all the flattering references to Vladimir Putin? What happened to the possibility of a new partnership if Donald Trump were elected? Why does it feel as if the Cold War has been resumed? What are all the accusations and saber rattling about?

As in the past I am looking for the simplest explanation that answers the most seemingly-puzzling questions.

Mainly, what's in it for Putin to allow or encourage its Syrian ally to use poison gas and why is Trump so suddenly accusing Putin of being an international war criminal? What happened to the bromance?

To answer these questions requires us to explore each of their likely motives.

For Trump it is to try once more to deflect and overwhelm the on-going investigations about Russia's hacking the 2016 presidential election to undermine Hillary Clinton's campaign in an attempt to help Trump emerge victorious.

Trump's pinprick bombing of a Syrian airfield, his movements on the world stage, especially the recent meeting with the Chinese president Xi and Secretary of State Tillerson's Moscow visit did in fact for a day or two deflect attention from the Trump campaign team's possible collaboration with the Russian hackers.

But Xi is back in China and the focus has shifted again to what did or did not happen during the campaign. Ominous for Trump is the new story that one of his senior foreign policy advisors, Carter Page, with FISA authorization, is being investigated by the F.B.I. to see if he was or is a covert Russian operative. With former NSC director Michael Flynn seeking immunity, the Page investigation is a potential bombshell and it is thus understandable that Trump would want to change the subject. The best way at the moment to change it is to demonologize Putin.

Putin has a much more complex agenda. He is seeking nothing less than the destabilization of the Western world and the resulting return of Russia to its prior Soviet glory. This process is greatly assisted by direct Russian interference in democratic elections from France to Germany to of course the United States.

This process of Sovietization is also facilitated by helping to bring about chaos in Western societies. So it should be no surprise that Putin's Russia would ally itself directly and indirectly with murderous dictators such as Bashar al-Assad, rogue states such as Iran, and terrorist groups including Hezbollah.

Trump wants to survive; Putin wants to dominate. Their tangled relationship serves both of their purposes--Putin having the goods on Trump effectively neutralizes him and Trump as intentional disruptor thrives in a roiled world.

Here, though, is what to worry about--

We do not want to see either of them become desperate. In addition to historical forces we are talking about two very fragile people. Individuals with fragile egos can be particularly dangerous if they have powerful tools or wield catastrophic weapon systems. Obviously, both Putin and Trump do.

Which brings me again to North Korea--

If Trump's survival strategy, his desperate and increasing need to deflect the search for the truth about his possible involvement with the hackers, if that strategy includes looking for opportunities to have the tail wag the dog, the most  fearsome example of that is not more targeted raids on Syria but a nuclear encounter with North Korea. If that were to occur, and I fear we may be headed in that direction, who any longer would be asking what Paul Manafort knew-and-when-did-he-know-it or on which Russia payroll Michael Flynn or Carter Page are to be found.

We would have our eyes on other matters. Mushroom clouds, for example.

April 7, 2017--Trump at War

A few quick observations--

The missile strike that President Trump ordered last night had at least four purposes:

(1) To punish the Assad regime for its poison gas attack on Syrian civilians. This happened on the 100th anniversary of the beginning of  our involvement in World War I where chemical weapons were for the first time widely used.

(2) To try to get the Russian Connection monkey off Trump's back. He bombed Russia's only real ally in the region in part to demonstrate he was not Putin's puppet.

(3) To demonstrate to the Chinese leadership that we are not to be messed with. Is it just a coincidence that Trump ordered the missile strike on the very day he was hosting the Chinese president? President Xi had a front row seat to observe an emboldened Trump in action. Trump was signaling that if you don't take the lead in containing North Korea, he will.

(4) Perhaps most important to Trump, this was to boost his approval ratings. They have been hovering in the mid 30s. Expect to see a 10 point jump by the weekend. Americans always rally around their president when he takes military action. But, as in the past, those numbers head quickly south after things calm down if nothing positive is happening. Just ask George H.W. Bush.

(5) And, of course by bombing Syria he distanced himself from President Obama who famously drew a red line in the sand but then backed away from enforcing it. He can now claim to be muy macho.

December 15, 2016--Am I Missing Something?

If I am, it wouldn't be the first time.

When newly-inaugurated president Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton called for the re-normalization of relations with Russia, in the person of Vladimir Putin, progressives supported that and even chuckled when Clinton brought an actual reset button with her as a present to Putin on her first official visit to Moscow.

Thankfully, we felt, we no longer had a president who proclaimed that he looked in "the man's eye and found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy." The "man" of course was Putin.

We know how that worked out. First with Bush and now with Obama, who not only can't exchange a civil word with Putin or look him int the eye but, more dangerously, we have Russia allied with the murderous Syrian regime, perpetrating a holocaust on opponents to the Assad government, while we stand by impudently doing nothing.

And now we know officially that Putin's people hacked their way into the middle of our recent election in an attempt to bring Clinton down and tip the election to Donald Trump. And once again, we are sitting around fulminating but doing nothing. What was it that the Chinese said about "paper tiger"?

Whatever shred of tiger still resides within us is now expressing itself as moral outrage that Trump's nominee to serve as Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, was too cozy with Russia and Putin during his tenure as CEO for Exxon Mobil.

Almost foaming at the mouth, John McCain, undoubtedly itching to get at the hated Donald Trump, has already declared that he will likely vote against Tillerson's nomination because his "friend" Putin is "a thug, a murderer, and a killer."

I wonder what McCain would have said about Stalin during the Second World War? Someone we disliked but depended upon to win against the Nazis. Historians have concluded that if it weren't for the Soviet involvement--defeating Hitler on the Second Front when he invaded Russia--we might very well have lost.

Stalin, this essential ally of ours, was more than a thug, murderer, or killer. He was a mass murderer the likes of which the world has thankfully rarely seen. He is reported to have slaughtered between 34 and 49 million of his own people. And yet, Roosevelt found ways to work with him.

And then later, President Nixon concluded it was expedient to reset relations with another mass murderer--Mao Zedong, who ordered the slaying of at least 45 million. This outreach to China was and is in our self-interest and therefore our leaders somehow found ways to overlook the flood of bloodshed and move on.

And now with Russia again challenging us, McCain and Paul and Rubio and a host of Democrats in the Senate are threatening to block Tillerson's confirmation.

If we could calm down about Tillerson in 2013 receiving the Order of Friendship medal from Putin, wouldn't we see his "friendly" relationship with Putin to be an asset rather than a killer virus to his confirmation? Or do we prefer the prospect of Secretary of State John Bolton? Or, help us, Rudy?

What would McCain and others have us do with regard to Putin and a resurgent Russia--bomb, bomb, bomb . . . bomb Moscow?

I'm just getting over the results of November's election and now I have to worry about World War III?

This is my 3,000th blog posting. The first was way back in August 2005. Thanks for taking the time to look in on these.

November 11, 2016--Trump's Line In the Sand

Sunday's presidential debate hit an all-time political low. It was as if we were watching an episode of the Jerry Springer Show. How appropriate was that considering what spawned Donald Trump.

At one point I said to Rona that I hope they had security guards nearby because I think Trump and Clinton were about to attack each other. Physically. Forget refusing to shake hands. I was thinking mud wrestling and biting in the neck.

There was a sense of menace with bulky Trump towering over Hillary, looking as if he was stalking her and about to pounce.

But in truth it looked like that largely because of the camera angles and the choice of perspectives and images the director selected to put on the air. There were the foreshortened shots that made it appear that Donald was right on top of her whereas those shots from the side revealed that less menacingly he was a more benign six feet away.

Talk about pictures being worth more than a thousand words and how there are in these choices political consequences that derive from camera angles and control room decisions.

Then post debate on line and in print there was the flood of fact-check results.

Since among other things I try to keep an eye on reporting by the New York Times, here is a little fact-checking of the fact-checking.

Priding itself as the "paper of record," one would think that the Times in the spirit of journalistic integrity--especially when it comes to something objective such as fact-checking--would scrutinize about the same number of facts alleged by each candidate since both did quite a bit of, how shall I put this, fibbing, OK, lying, to use a word they both were comfortable hurling, would check about the same number of facts. Say ten for Trump and eight for Clinton. This would give the appearance of being fair and balanced though with a wink indicating that Donald told more whoppers than Hillary.

It might surprise you then--though not necessarily--that the non-partisan Times fact-checked 22 of Trump's assertions and only five of Hillary's.

To offer a flavor of the accuracy, let's take a look at Trump's charge that Hillary Clinton was still serving as secretary of state when President Obama drew his famous "line in the sand" when it appeared that Bashar al-Assad was about to use chemical weapons against the Syrian rebels.

Here cut-and-pasted from the Times' is their fact-checking--

Mr. Trump accused Mrs. Clinton of being there for President Obama’s “line in the sand” in Syria. She said she wasn’t.

Trump is wrong.

Donald J. Trump appears to be referring to the “red line” (not “line in the sand”) episode in Syria. At a news conference in August 2012, President Obama said if President Bashar al-Assad of Syria moved or used “a whole bunch of chemical weapons,” it would be “a red line” that would change his calculations about not intervening in Syria with armed force. 

A year later — after Hillary Clinton was no longer in government — there was a chemical weapons attack in a rebel-contested suburb of Damascus, killing as many as 1,500 people. The United States government issued a report saying “streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence” as proving that Syrian government forces were behind the attack, meaning Mr. Obama’s red line had been crossed.

So Trump gets a pants-on-fire for mixing up "line in the sand" and "red line." Fair enough--but he got the essential truth right--Clinton was still in office when Obama issued his feckless threat. Presumably, with Clinton's endorsement.

From the Pulitzer-Prize winning website, POLITIFACT, here is what they have to say about the same fact--

Basically, Obama drew the chemical weapons "red line" in August 2012 when Clinton was secretary of state [my italics]. But by the time the White House confirmed that Assad crossed it about a year later, she had been replaced by John Kerry.

The Washington Post came to a similar conclusion.

This is not just academic nitpicking but goes to the heart of any analysis of Hillary Clinton's experience and accomplishments as secretary of state.

Forget Trump--he's on his way next month to a well deserved thrashing. But the fact that Clinton frequently misrepresents her record should be of concern. Especially to those of us who support her. I

And, yes, the New York Times also needs to take a close and honest look at itself. We need it to be at its journalistic best and Hillary Clinton, out next president, needs to be forceful, visionary, and honest.

August 12, 2016--Russia Is Winning the New Cold War

It is now generally acknowledged that Russia's intervention in Syria has, from a Russian perspective, been effective.

Putin's Russia, unlike Obama's United States, is now seen to be the leading and most influential great power operating in the region. Russia's military and political support for Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, has effectively ended the rebellion against his government, and so now, since they made this possible, he is "owned" equally by both Russia and Iran, Assad's major patrons.

The United States is now relegated to the insignificant sidelines, unable to figure out which rebel faction(s) to support and is also seen to be impotent in regard to efforts to impose "red lines," topple Assad, or defeat ISIS.

Even in Second Cold War terms, Russia's modernized military is more than a match for ours even though we have outspent them on the development of smart weapons designed for asymmetrical warfare. This represents another miscall by the CIA and our military intelligence operatives--as during the First Cold War when they failed to notice that the Soviet Union's economy was collapsing under the pressure of attempting to compete with us weapon-system-by-weapon-system, this time around they failed to alert us to the power and sophistication of the new Russian military.

Most revealing, as Russia flexes new muscle to protect its borders as well as reduce the power of the United Staes and especially Western Europe, is the new cynical feel-good relationship developing between Russia and Turkey.

Just nine months ago a Turkish jet downed a Russian military aircraft and though it looked as if a hot war might break out between the two nations, in spite of this, earlier this week Turkish president Recep Tayyip-Erdogan was in Moscow to talk with President Putin about putting aside the past and establishing a closer relationship.

They both have skin in the regional game (and both leaders within their own countries need propping up) so going to war with each other would not be in either one's best interest.

Thus, out of mutual need, Turkey is raising questions about its role in NATO--something Putin enthusiastically welcomes--and Russia is helping to cut off the military aid the U.S. is supplying to the Kurds who are eager to carve Kurdistan out of land they live in in Syria, Iraq, and most geopolitically important, Turkey.

Erdogan is blaming America for the recent coup that failed to topple him and is suspicious about our agenda regarding the Kurds, while Putin seeks to destabilize NATO and push its forces, very much including those of the United States, back from its western borders.

Thus the appearance of these unlikely bedfellows. And their mutual interest in the candidacy of Donald Trump who is confounding our freight policy establishment as well as that of our NATO allies when he questions the on-going role of NATO, particularly why the U.S. should underwrite a disproportionate portion of its budget.

A more credible Republican candidate would have a field day with these failed polices of President Obama and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

May 10, 2016--Putin's Concert in Palmyra

Vladimir Putin has figured out yet another way to make everyone crazy.

Not just by annexing Crimea, not just by threatening Latvia, not just by striking new accords with China, not just by essentially endorsing Donald Trump's candidacy, not just by rolling out sophisticated 21st century weapon systems in the skies and on the ground in Syria, not just by helping his fellow oligarchs stash away billions of stolen Russian assets in Panama while his country languishes for a second year with a stalled economy.

In addition to all of this, as an act of assertion and to poke us and our Western allies in the eye, he arranged for a classical music concert last week in the formerly ISIS-controlled World Heritage city of Palmyra, Syria. A form of victory lap.

Palmyra had been overrun and subjugated for more than a year by ISIS. While they held the city in thrall, ISIS goons, in addition to torturing and slaughtering Palmyrians, set about destroying the ancient 1st and 2nd century Greco-Roman temples--to them "pagan" shrines--in an attempt to obliterate all traces of Western culture.

ISIS also last summer used the most spectacular of these ruins, the concert site, as a killing field, actually a public beheading field for at least 25 victims.

For some time, the United States and its coalition allies had been unable to stop the carnage much less dislodge the Islamic State fighters. Then along came the Russians.

Defying our urgings, in support of fighters loyal to their ally, Syria president Bashar al-Assad, the Russians began a sustained air offensive against ISIS and Syrian rebel targets in Palmyra and elsewhere.

The American administration was quick to point out--with some official smugness--that among other things, derived from our own propensity to became mired in internecine wars in the region, that the Russians too would find it easier to become involved than to accomplish their mission and then manage to extract themselves.

Amazingly, with some limitations, exceptions, and caveats, the Russians were able to find ways to be effective, including driving ISIS from some of the territories it had overrun in Iraq and Syria. Very much including returning Palmyra to precarious local control.

And thus the "victory" concert.

Using what the New York Times called its "soft power," Russia deployed a chamber orchestra to Palmyra along with one of the country's most esteemed conductors, Valery Gergiev, and cellist, Sergei Roldugin. A tightly-guarded V.I.P. audience, was also flown in to attend the concert, which included two pieces by Johan Sebastian Bach. Recommended attire--bulletproof vests. And then, at concert's end, quickly flown out.

Admittedly, this was a Potemkin-Village concert--more show and facade than evidence of Palmyra's liberation.

But what a brilliant piece of geopolitical theater by Putin. It might be considered his version of "Mission Accomplished." Though, as we know, these missions are rarely accomplished.

(Today would be my father's 110th birthday. He would have hated all of this.)

September 2, 2014--ISIS

Most objective historians contend that George W. Bush and, before him, Bill Clinton ignored the many early signs that Al-Queda represented a deadly threat to the U.S. homeland.

Famously or infamously, President Bush was cutting brush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas and didn't want to be disturbed by a National Security memo that warned of an imminent attack by Al-Qaeda on America.

It was a failure to "connect the dots," both critics and apologists said retrospectively. It was at least that. Worse--why did citizens and our government have to learn about the reach and power of Al Qaeda for the first time on 9/11?

Which brings me to today to ISIS, the even more radical successor to Al-Qaeda.

ISIS, the jihadist faction that has recently swept out of Syria, where it was incubated, and is rampaging through central Iraq, slaughtering Shiites, Kurds, and Christians as it expands the borders of its self-procliamed Caliphate is now commanding the attention of Western leaders. President Obama as well as British Prime Minister Cameron cut short their vacations to pay more attention to this dangerous movement.

Where did they come from seemingly so quickly? How did they develop the capacity, apparently overnight, to take on first Syria's army and then roll back Kurdish and Iraqi armed forces? Armies that we equipped and trained for years to be self-sufficient retreated across Iraq with hardly a fight in the face of ISIS's self-trained militias.

Why does it appears that the president and other world leaders are just now learning about ISIS and finally taking action to halt its advance? Including, President Obama implied late last week, seeking them out at their sanctuaries in Syria.

Did we again forget to connect the dots when we began to notice that scores of Americans and hundreds of Europeans were making their way to Syria to join the rebels fighting the Assad regime and then to enlist in ISIS's brigades?

It is understandable that we did not want to get directly involved in arming the rebels in Syria much less supplying air cover or, worse, boots on the ground. The situation is a quagmire, best to remain uninvolved; but if we had evidence that the situation there was an incubator of jihadist terrorists who might ultimately threaten us directly, maybe we should have reconsidered keeping our hands off.

Perhaps we should have learned some lessons from our own history of involvement in the region. First, how we intervened in a surrogate Cold War confrontation with Russia in Afghanistan. How we armed the Mujahideen who in turn defeated the Russians and then, without pausing to thank us, using our weapons, transformed themselves into the Taliban who shortly thereafter supported and provided sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda fighters. As a result there was 9/11.

A version of the same thing is now happening in Syria-Iraq.

After we brought down Saddam Hussein, with the full participation of the American occupying forces, we agreed with the Shiite majority to rid the government and, more importantly, the military of any Sunni Muslims who were members of Hussein's Baathist Party. We took the lead in the de-Baathification of the country and placed our support behind the Shiites who, in the process, disenfranchising this talented group of government officials and military leaders, also doing all they could to publicly humiliate them.

So it should come as no surprise to find them now in leadership roles within ISIS. A major reason ISIS is so effective, so able to fight with discipline and precision, is because of their Baathist allies, who, as in Afghanistan, have taken possession of massive amounts of American arms and weapon systems that they seized from the retreating Shiite forces.

As a consequence, again because of inept American and European leadership, expect to see us engaged soon in various forms of combat in the lands now controlled by ISIS--in Iraq, Kurdistan, and even Syria, where, as a result, ironically, we may wind up helping Bashar al-Assad to keep his grip on power.

August 25, 2014--Rona al-Assad

Just between us do we think Egypt is a better place since Hosni Mubarak was ousted? What about Libya? Muammar Gadaffi is gone but what has taken his place? Chaos and civil war.

And would Jordan be an open society if King Abdullah were overthrown, or would Saudi Arabia suddenly become democratic with women allowed to drive without the Saud-family absolute monarchy in iron-fisted control? And we know what would result if and when Bashar al-Assad is killed or chased into luxurious exile.
       

Then, there is Rona's favorite example--Iraq.

For a moment it felt good to see Saddam Hussein captured and even executed, but what is his legacy? More civil war and unrelenting brutality and killings. She quipped some time ago, even before ISIS invaded and took control of a central swarth of Iraq, declaring a caliphate, that it's too bad Saddam is dead because in order to keep Iraq from splintering we need a tyrant to keep a lid on things. Sure Iraqi Shiites not a part of the Sunni ruling elite would again be discriminated against, and often worse, but compared to the number of killings and executions and beheadings currently going on, Saddam's rule seems benevolent.

So it is not entirely surprising that officials from governments in one way or another involved with Iraq and Syria would be wondering out loud if it might be a good idea to encourage and enable Bashar al-Assad to defeat the militants operating from within Syria, jihadists who are leading the effort to overthrow him as well as crossing back and forth across the Syria-Iraq border in order, day-by-day, to take control of much of Iraq and Syria, the heart of their new caliphate.

Rather than calling for his ouster, perhaps, based on the Libya-Egypt-Iraq experience, it may be in the best interest of Western parties to see al-Assad triumph and in control again of all of his country. Most of the killings would then stop, perhaps some rebuilding would occur, and minimally our interests would, in their own hypocritical and tortured way, be protected.

In that region the old status quo had many advantages.

Speaking the unspeakable, in Britain, a former foreign secretary and defense secretary suggested that though Bashar al-Assad is "unsavory," he should be used against the even greater evil, ISIS.

As reported in the New York Times, former secretary Malcom Rifkind said the beheading of journalist James Foley (by a Brit) required a forceful response from the West. The militants "need to be eliminated and we should not be squeamish about how we do it."

Speaking the language of realpolitik, he went on, "Sometimes you have to develop relationships with people who are extremely nasty in order to get rid of people who are even nastier."

Rona couldn't have said it better.

Understandably, the current foreign secretary rejected the idea out of hand. In polite society one does not speak so frankly. Especially not in public.

June 25, 2014--Sunnistan

I know next to nothing but for years knew that as soon as the U.S. withdrew its troops from "Iraq" there would be civil war and eventually--actually soon--there will be at least three countries replacing "Iraq."

"Iraq" is in quotes to suggest that it is a geopolitical fiction. It is no more a culturally-consistent country than Syria or Jordan, current-day Lebanon or Israel. The list goes on. All were creations of European and American victors at the end of World War I.

I know next to nothing about the situation in strife-torn Syria, but for at least two years, from casually reading the New York Times and other sources, I knew that the chaos in Syria and northwestern "Iraq" was an incubator for extravagantly jihadist factions. I had never heard of ISIS (and it appears that neither did most of our leaders), but I knew thousands of youthful militants (including many from the United States and Western Europe) were streaming to Syria to be trained to join the fray and to become suicide bombers.

Again I know next to nothing, but knew that the so-called border between Syria and "Iraq" was porous and in danger of being obliterated and that a new country would emerge that will likely in the future be known as Sunnistan. As there will be a Shiastan (allied with Iran) and of course a Kurdistan.

So if I, knowing so little, knew this much where have our leaders been?

Since Syria was the place where this toxic mix was being compounded, why didn't the Obama administration agree to directly help the moderate forces who were struggling to overthrow Bashar al-Assad as well as fend off the most violent of the jihadists?

It may not have worked (what does in that region?) but wasn't it at least worth a try? Now, we have to reengage in "Iraq" to save some bits and pieces of stability from the mess George W. Bush and his handlers brought about by their invasion and occupation.

We spent $1.7 trillion (with a T) in Iraq and one would think that would at least have bought us a functioning intelligence network that would have warned us about what was bubbling in Sunnistan.

Or, for $2.50 a day, the administration could have picked up the Times at the corner newsstand and known from its coverage what was happening.

In case they didn't want to spend all that money on the Times, they could have for free checked the ISIS website regularly where, without spin, they openly publish their agenda and flaunt their achievements. One can also consult their annual reports. Yes, like a corporation or national state they issue them!

Among these "achievements," again reported yesterday in the Times, is the capture and control of all roads that connect Syria with "Iraq" and "Iraq" with Jordan.

So, in effect, Sunnistan now exists.

November 20, 2013--Bomb, Bomb, Bomb . . . Bomb Iran

Here's what has me worried--

As dramatically weakened Barack Obama confronts three more years of his presidency, with the unlikelihood of anything, anything being approved by Congress (it will get even worse after Republican victories in the upcoming midterm elections), as with other presidents who had second-term problems, he will likely be tempted to do something dramatic in foreign affairs where as commander in chief he has considerable independent authority and the ability to act without congressional approval.

This is not in itself a bad thing--plagued by sex scandals, Bill Clinton almost pulled off an historic deal between the Israelis and Palestinians; Ronald Reagan negotiated significant disarmament agreements with the Soviets; and even Richard Nixon made progress in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

But then there is the wag-the-dog problem--the temptation to get involved in overseas adventures to distract the public or repair tarnished presidential reputations. If was thought, for example, that to change the subject from Monica Lewinski and her blue dress, Clinton was itching to go to war in the Balkans.

Obama is on the ropes. The botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act is just the most recent in a string of failures that has ruined his political reputation and seen his approval ratings sink to George W. Bush levels.

On that list of failures and blunders is his now infamous pledge to draw a red line in Syria--if Bashar al-Assad crossed it and used chemical weapons against the rebels, Obama forcefully stated, the United States would take military action against the regime.

Assad did cross that red line and Obama backed down. He ordered lots os saber rattling but no intervention. The situation was saved by Russian President Putin who put pressure on his Syrian allies to give up their WMD program, which they are proceeding to do under UN supervision.

This failure to follow through has ruined Obama's reputation in that region.

Not only do the Israelis distrust him--if he failed to act in Syria what is his word worth when it comes to Iran where he has drawn another redline about Iran's nuclear capabilities?--now our other allies, the Saudis, Turkey, and Jordan, wonder if we will come to their assistance if the Iranians develop nuclear weapons or there are threats to their survival.

Clearly Obama wants to make a deal with the new, seemingly more moderate Iranian leaders. In fact, an initial, interim agreement may be struck as early as this week. This is not just a good thing for Obama's political reputation but a good thing in itself. We have to find a way to pull back from the brink. If Iran goes nuclear, it is virtually certain that the Saudis, Egyptians, and Turks will as well. This is not a part of the world where we want to see a nuclear arms race.

But beyond diplomacy, with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu marshaling local as well as U.S. congressional opposition to any deal with Iran, threatening to take unilateral military action against Iran's nuclear facilities, the political pressure on Obama--at this vulnerable time in his presidency--is almost beyond calculation.

The temptation to show that his word is good--especially when it comes to staking out positions in the world where there are threats to our allies and to our own security--may impel President Obama to want to show some muscle.

He hasn't done very much of that with Congress and other than killing Osama bin Ladin and numerous al Qaeda leaders with drones (which is generally commendable), Obama has been a disengaged, passive leader more including to deliver speeches than exert forceful leadership.

One place where he can take a form of forceful action is in Iran where he can join the Israelis in bombing their uranium enrichment facilities in an attempt to set back their nuclear clock.

This could in time be necessary. But diplomacy may now be working and it will require considerable courage from Obama to fend off pressure from Israel and Congress to keep talking and dealing with the Iranians.

September 16, 2013--Win-Win-Win-Win-Win?

Even before sitting down John said, "What do you think about what's happening in Syria?"

"Let's get that out of the way," Rona said, "so we can turn to more pleasant subjects."

John slid into the booth and ordered Eggs Benedict. "I mean," he said, "Obama's a smart guy, right?" We nodded. "Not perfect. We support him, yes?" We continued to nod. "From our perspective he's made mistakes and is too quick to compromise, but about the big picture, especially anything that has to do with history, he generally gets it right. Wouldn't you agree?"

Yes," I said, "I agree. What's your point?" My eggs were getting cold.

"First he draws red lines, then he threatens to bomb Syria because they used poison gas, but then he asks Congress to authorize military action, and after that goes along with a proposal from Russia of all places to have Syria give up its weapons of mass destruction. I'm all confused." He looked over at me and shrugged.

"Here's what I think may be going on," I said. "For certain Obama is smart, very smart, and has a big picture view of the world, especially where civilization clash as well as where there is clashing within civilizations. No better example of both being the Middle East."

"I knew I could count on you to set this in context." From his tone I wondered if he was having a little fun with  me.

I was on a roll, fully caffeinated, and so undeterred I continued, "With Syria you have a situation where everyone, every interested party is backed into a corner.  Bashar al-Assad is facing a civil war that's two years old and going nowhere. Except that his country is largely destroyed and he is justifiably seen as a mass murderer of his own people. Now by using sarin poison gas.

"The remaining big powers--England, France, Russia, the U.S--are backed into corners of their own. Russia, really Vladimir Putin is Assad's chief backer, supplying him with weapons and protecting him from being sanctioned by the UN. In turn, everyone in the so-called civilized world is looking at Putin as  a new kind of Soviet-style dictator who is proceeding to snuff out all forms of dissent while attempting to contain his own internal Muslim extremists.

"Greater Syria--including Lebanon--for many years has been a part of France's anachronistic sphere of influence; and then southern Syria, including Israel and Palestine were governed in the same way by England. The Brits this time opted out of becoming involved and thus, according to Middle Eastern calculus lost standing; while France egged Obama on in an attempt to reassert their own influence in the region."

No one interrupted me so I rattled on, "The United States appears to be in the most compromised and contradictory position of all. John Kerry and Barack Obama draw red lines and threatened to attack Syria because of their use of sarin gas. They each trumpeted that, 'The United Staes doesn't do pinpricks'; and then almost instantly took back the threat so as not to alienate doves in Congress. Kerry, for example, assured his former colleagues and the world that whatever we do in Syria would be 'unbelievably small.'"

"And then there's Israel," Rona joined in, "They didn't know how to react, right, first deciding not to say anything about America's potential involvement but then feeling isolated when the U.S. seemed to back off. They began to wonder out loud about the U.S.'s red line when it comes to Iran's nuclear program. Would Obama back off from that too?"

"So far I'm with you," John said, well into his Eggs Benedict, "But I'm not seeing how this is evidence of Obama's strategic smarts. It all sounds like quite a mess to me. Half of it his making."

"A mess it is, always has been," I said. "I'm right now toward the end of Lawrence In Arabia, and though I didn't know that much about Arabia during the time of the First World War, minimally, things there were so internally tumultuous as the result of culture, history, and outside interference that there were no easy answers then, much less now."

"And so?" John asked. "I need to leave in a minute so tell me how any of this makes sense and why I should think Obama knows what he's doing."

"I think we agree that he's no hawk. He was elected to end two wars, not to start new ones. He, though, is no pushover when it comes time to approve dangerous missions. Ask Osama bin Laden about that. Or, for that matter, much of al Qaeda's original leadership. So he must be very conflicted about getting involved in Syria, even after they used sarin. Therefore he sends out mixed signals. Some inadvertently, some intentional, and sets in motion a complex set of reactions.

"The Brits look prescient and regained some of their independence and moral standing. They are no longer Bush's or Obama's or any American president's poodle. France gets to look engaged and retains a portion of its traditional role in Greater Syria. All without having to do or risk anything. Very French.

"Putin, who needed rehabilitation in the community of nations gets to look like a statesman and Russia regains some stature and--after the collapse of the Soviet Union--looks again like a version of a superpower. Which, ironically, might help make the world a safer place.

"And Israel gets what it wanted all along--the civil war in Syria will continue unabated for years and thereby reduce the threat they feel from Hezbollah and their Syrian sponsors. If the poison gas there actually is eliminated (and I think it will be--it's in everyone's best interest) that's one more thing Israel will not have to worry about."

"And what about us? What about Obama?" John asked, "How does he come out looking good and not wimpy? As someone who has credibility and needs to be taken seriously? Doesn't he feel diminished to you?"

"Yes he does," I said, "And that may be the most brilliant thing of all. And the most courageous. To be diminished."

"You're losing me," Rona interjected. "I thought we'd get to other things by now. About how beautiful the weather is and how Monday is Bristol County tax day.  I wanted to ask John a few things about our real estate taxes."

"One more minute," I said. "What's potentially courageous in what Obama initiated--and I am speculating he initiated most of these moving pieces--is taking the risk to cool a hot situation by making it appear that America is, in Syrian circumstances and perhaps all of that region, to make it appear that we are weak.

"If so, that would be very Middle Eastern. That's one of my takeaways from Lawrence In Arabia--how among tribes and clans there at times to be strong one has to act or appear to be weak. Everyone knows who''s in fact weak or strong; and when it comes to the United States they know no one is more powerful. So a president can use some of that awareness, that political capital to get things done through subtle as opposed to bellicose behavior. At times, maybe as now, a mix of both is best."

"This is not uninteresting," John said.

"Beyond this, maybe this is also a way for Obama to say that during his remaining time, at least, we're disengaging. We and the rest of the West made enough of a mess already and perhaps it's time to try something new. Let others work things out. Locally. It will be messy, but what else is new?"

"And now about the taxes," Rona was doing her best.

John said, "I have to run. One of our granddaughters is having a birthday today. She's five. Let's hope she'll grow up to live in a better world."

"Amen to that," Rona and I said simultaneously.

August 2, 2013--Croissants

Just my luck. At a breakfast place called Chrissy's in downtown Damariscotta, Maine of all places, after decades of searching, I finally found the best croissants in America.

They are bulky yet light and airy. Thick, dark caramel bands wrap them with blisters of tan revealing just how delicate each outer layer is. Tear off a piece and an internal view shows that the croissant is composed of seemingly hundreds of paper-thin layers and emanating from them is the sweet scent of toasted butter.

So wouldn't you know it, just as I was getting used to enjoying my good fortune—ordering two a day to consume with Chrissy’s homemade peach and cherry jams—according to the Washington Post, in rebel-held Aleppo, Syria, a sharia committee has just declared them--via a fatwa--symbols of "colonial oppression" and forbade their consumption. 

Nearly 100,000 Syrians have thus far been killed in the civil war between the government of Bashar al-Assad and various rebel groups and they have time to think about banning the baking and eating of croissants?

People are literally scavenging for scraps of food but there are Syrian religious leaders who are worried about the corrupting influence of these crescent-shaped delights?

I don’t mean to make light of this, but really.

But I do get it. It is because of their suspicious crescent shape. Could it be that croissants are made like that, these Syrian wise men ask, to mock the Islamic Ottoman invaders who in the early 1880s, attempted to capture Budapest? 

When they were repelled by the European infidels, what did the Hungarians do to celebrate their victory? According to the Syrian sharia committee, rather than organize a parade or a fireworks display like normal Western imperialists, life-loving Austrio-Hungarians that they were instead asked local bakers to come up with a new and special treat to commemorate their military victory.

The result, it is alleged, the buttery, flaky viennoiseria bread-roll with its signature crescent-shape, supposedly derisively derived from the crescent part of the crescent-and-star flag of the Ottoman’s.

The fact that this version of the croissant’s origins is apocryphal hardly matters—in reality, the croissant originated much earlier in the 19^th century and was concocted for the first time in Vienna, not Budapest, in what is now Austria. 

But what matters are two things—

First, this reveals that the Syrian rebels are becoming more and more doctrinaire and fundamentalist, recently having banned makeup and women’s tight clothing. If they manage to overthrow the Assad regime (seemingly less and less likely as time goes by), it may be that Syria will wind up more resembling Iran than Turkey.

And then there is my croissant problem: breakfasting on something that is the subject of a fatwa doesn’t sound like much fun. especially before I've had my second cup of coffee.
Note--

On the other hand, coffee is likely never to be fatwaed--it appears, thankfully, to have been first cultivated in the 14th century by Arabs.