July 26, 2016--Hillary Quiz

Some claim that Hillary Clinton, with the exception of a few of America's founders--Thomas Jefferson, for example--is the most "qualified" nominee ever to run for president.

This assessment more than anything is based on her resumé. It is indisputably impressive.

She was First Lady for eight years and had real responsibilities. She did much, much more than preside over congressional wives' teas. Among other things, in a quasi-official capacity, she visited 82 countries.

Then for eight additional years she was a U.S. senator from New York.

In 2008, she almost won the Democratic presidential nomination.

After Barack Obama was elected, as part of his "team of rivals," she served for four years as his Secretary of State.

Even George H.W. Bush, who also had a very impressive professional history, didn't compare.

So by these resumé criteria, Hillary Clinton, on paper, is about the most qualified. Ever.

But before coming to that conclusion, there is another way of thinking about "qualified."

Not by a list of job titles and honorary degrees but by an accounting of accomplishments.

On this basis, Hillary Clinton as most qualified? Not so sure.

But, if you are inclined, convince me otherwise by taking this snap quiz.

Rate each of the following on a 1-10 scale, with 1 being indictable and 10 worthy of the Nobel Prize.

As First Lady:

Health care reform? OK, this one is too easy.

As Senator:

Support for the Children's Health Insurance Program? (CHIP)
Vote to authorize invasion of Iraq?
Other?____________

As Secretary of State:

"Resetting" relationship with Russia?
Keeping Russia from invading and annexing Crimea?
Containing North Korea's nuclear weapons program?
Overthrowing the Muammar Gaddafi regime in Libya?
In Syria, attempting to remove Bashar al-Assad from the presidency?
Overthrowing the Mubarak government in Egypt?
Seeing the election there of the Muslim Brotherhood?
Stabilizing Iraq?
The emergence of ISIS?
Containing/defeating ISIS?
Limiting China's expansion in the South China Sea?
Resolving the Israeli-Palistinian conflict?
Leading the effort to reach a nuclear deal with Iran?
Managing her State Department e-mails?
Other? (Anything but Benghazi) ____________

Of course we could do the same thing with Jefferson. Also on scale of 1-10:

Declaration of Independence?
Ambassador to France?
The Louisiana Purchase?
University of Virginia?
Sally Hemmings?
Other? ____________

February 13, 2015--Best of Behind: The Middle East? Hands Off

This seemed pertinent in June 2014 when it originally appeared and feels even more so today as President Obama is asking Congress to retrospectively authorize military strikes against ISIS Islamists and many in the House and Senate are pushing back against what some feel is the next step to our getting more directly involved in Syria and northern Iraq where ISIS poses an existential threat--

As President Obama feels the pressure to provide military assistance to the collapsing regime in Iraq, he and we should step back and review the last 2,500 years of history. Just a few pertinent highlights!

The major lesson is that no outside power, from Alexander the Great of Macedonia to the French and British imperialists, from the Soviet Union and now the United States, no one has been able to impose their will on the region.

All interventions, all attempts to subjugate proud and defiant peoples have failed. And worse--have reverberated back disastrously on the invaders, colonizers, and occupiers.

After 330 BC Alexander never recovered; the British and French colonial powers after the First World War never recovered; the Soviet Union collapsed and never recovered; and the United States lost treasure, power, and influence in the region and I suspect will also not recover.

So what to do now?

The right answer is nothing.

We should get out of the way and allow the people living there figure out their own futures, very much including their own borders.

If we could impose a sane and just plan of our own that would endure, I would consider supporting it. But the long reach of history teaches that any attempt to do so is doomed to fail and, worse, will only make things worse.

Look at the current situation in Iraq. The Sunni jihadists have already overrun a third of the country, a country that was arbitrarily constructed at the end of WW I. From the videos showing ISIS's triumphant advance, while the so-called Iraqi army discards its uniforms and attempts to blend in with the benighted civilian population, we see the invaders already in possession of American military equipment that also was abandoned by the Iraqi army.

This was reminiscent of the experience in Afghanistan where the U.S., still entangled in the Cold War, armed the Mujahideen who were fighting the invading Soviets and, after defeating them (which contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union), morphed into the Taliban which proceeded to overthrow the Afghan government and then turned its weapons, the ones we supplied, on us when we invaded at the end of 2001. And does anyone doubt that as soon as we finish leaving Afghanistan the Taliban will once again take over?

Sounds like current-day Iraq to me.

Seven years ago, presidential candidate Joe Biden was ridiculed when he said that Iraq should be allowed to devolve into three countries--Shiite in the south, Sunni in the middle, and Turkistan in the north.

He was right.

In fact, he could have advocated similar things for the rest of the region, from at least Tunisia in the west to Afghanistan and Pakistan in the east.

Few of the countries in that geographic span have cultural borders--Iran (formerly Persia) and Egypt are perhaps the exceptions--but rather ones drawn for them by various conquerers and occupiers.

For centuries, for their own strategic and economic purposes, dominant Western powers have attempted to contain and control the essentially tribal people who live in this vast region. Since the end of the Second World War, country-by-country this has been unraveling. And at an accelerated pace for the past four or five years. Recall the Arab Spring of 2010.

The emergence of jihadist and terrorist groups--ISIS is just the most recent example--feels especially threatening to our national interest. But it may be more dangerous to attempt to continue to contain these aspirations and energies than let to them play out.

The genie of various forms of liberation cannot be stuffed back in the bottle. It is much too late for that.

It may be less risky to step back and allow these contesting forces to work things out. We may not like this idea or the potential outcomes; but, in reality, do we realistically have the ability and resources to impose an alternative scenario?

Do we see ourselves intervening on the side of the Shia-dominated government in Iraq allied with Iran's Revolutionary Guard? As unlikely, even as preposterous as this may sound, it is being seriously discussed.

Frightening as that prospect is--very much including the blow to our national ego--it represents another reason to back off. If there is to be fighting, and of course there is and will be, at least it will be focused within the region, internecine, and less directed toward us. That could be truly in our national interest.

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.

July 22, 2014--Terror Tunnels

I've been struggling with what to say about the current Israeli incursion into Gaza and the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel. All precipitated by the savage killing of three Israeli youth by Palestinian terrorists and the equally shocking capture, torture, and murder of a Palestinian youth by three equally-youthful Israeli ultra-orthodox fanatics.

One could say that this exchange of barbarisms was precipitated by many decades of animosity, ethnic and religious bigotry on both sides, and claims and counterclaims about territorial primacy. There is enough blame to go around and around and around and . . .

There is no good solution here.

Actually, there is the idea of one--the so-called two-state solution--but the motivation to agree to this in practice is virtually non-existent. Radicals and hateful people--again on both sides--make any possibility of compromise remote. I almost wrote "hopeless."

Hopeless is the way I feel and thus my reluctance to try to write about the situation. I dislike even the prospect of considering hopelessness.

Anyone who feels that what is happening now will lead to any sort of reasonable progress on all the conflicting but often legitimate concerns knows nothing about the irreconcilable history that stretches back millennia in that fraught region. When people feel that their right to exist and have a homeland in the area--actually, in Palestine or, of you will, Greater Israel--is divinely sanctioned or, in Israeli's case, chosen for them by God, it is hard to think what adversaries might productively say to each other if they could be induced or compelled to negotiate.

In truth, both sides, not just the side represented by Hamas, do not recognize the other's right to exist. Militant Israelis--more and more in charge of the situation--would as much like to see the Palestinians eliminated or, minimally, expelled from the contested region as radical arabs would like to see Israel "pushed into the sea."

It has even gotten to the point where Hamas and Israel do not know how to effectively wage war against each other.

The best current example is Israel's inability--despite it military superiority and high-tech capacity to deploy smart bombs and anti-missile missiles--to suppress the fighting capacity of their decidedly low-tech foe who blend into civilian areas of Gaza when Israeli troops and weapon systems appear.

Israel cannot even wipe out the tunnel system that enables Hamas fighters to manufacture home-made bombs and rockets and, using them, infiltrate into Israel proper to carry out acts of war and terror.

As incredible as it may seem, until the new military regime in Egypt clamped down on them, there were at least 1,200 tunnels connecting Egyptian Sinai and Gaza and many dozens of others linking Gaza with Israel itself. Some of these latter tunnels--ones Hamas calls "terror tunnels"--penetrate nearly half a mile into Israel. Others, reenforced by thousands of tons of concrete, are over 100 feet deep and, for reasons I cannot explain, go undetected by Israeli satellite, inferred, and other intelligence assets.

We are not talking about a 2,000 mile border like the one between the United States and Mexico which is thus impossible to make impenetrable, but rather a relatively short one in a circumscribed geographic area. One would think it would be relatively easy for Israel to know about every one of these tunnels since they have the will and technology to do so. But that appears not to be the case as the Israeli military is right know risking life and limb to find and seal them.

And so when they do finally find and destroy them all, where will things stand?

Pretty much where they were five years ago, a decade ago, a century ago, a millennium ago. There will be a brief halt in the mass killings as both sick step back under worldwide diplomatic pressure, lick their wounds, rearm, rage on about the cruelty of the other side, ratchet-up the hatred, and get ready to do it all over again within the next two to five years.

Just as the sun inexorable rises and sets, this too shall come to pass.

April 3, 2014--Very Foreign Policy

Barack Obama came into office offering the hope that he would work effectively to reset America's tattered international relations

After nearly a decade of failed preemptive wars and empty preened for having "won" the Cold War, it was time, he intoned, for a fundamental change of direction.

It seemed as if Obama understood the issues both from study and having spent formative years in the less-developed world. His very being offered the promise of new approaches--less Western, less chauvinistic, more nuanced.

During the 2008 campaign he made a powerful speech in Berlin that outlined his global vision and called for dramatic new approaches in our relations with allies, adversaries, and the uncommitted. Then, early in his presidency, in Cairo he outlined a new agenda for America as he saw us interfacing with Islamic nations and aspiring peoples. His very words, it was thought, would spark change.

There was so much hope unleashed that the Nobel Prize Committee awarded the Peace Prize to Obama preemptively. In anticipation of all that he would for certain accomplish.

But by now almost all of this early promise has been unfulfilled.

Where in the world, after nearly six years, have we seen any of this promise realized?

In the Middle East? Just yesterday Mahmoud Abbas effectively scuttled any possibility for improvement in relations between Israel and the Palestinians. In a funk, John Kerry cancelled a meeting with him and flew home. Mission not accomplished.

Russia moved into Crimea and threatens the rest of Ukraine. The famous reset button is long forgotten. Mentioned now only for the purpose of mockery. Relations are so frayed between Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin that they can barely be in the same room together.

What to make of Syria? A country, an ancient civilization destroyed while we couldn't can't figure out how to be influential much less directly helpful. Obama drew red lines and than ignored them.

And what about Egypt? We were complicit in the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak and now, after a reasonably democratic election that saw the Muslim Brotherhood brought to power, after they were deposed by the generals, we see in place an even more oppressive regime than Mubarak's. It is also impervious to U.S. influence.

Then there is Saudi Arabia. Whatever one thinks about their leadership (very little), for 70 years we have had a mutually beneficial relationship. We buy their oil and sell them arms to defend themselves from and buy-off Islamists living and plotting in their midst. Because of our feckless policy with Syria and the Saudis' perception that by showing uncertainty and weakness Iran will soon have nuclear weapons, they have not just distanced themselves from us but are actively thinking about developing nuclear weapons of their own. It may be a hold-one's-nose relationship, but it has been useful to us and our European and Asian allies and, out of self-interest, needs to be retained and strengthened. Does anyone anymore think Obama is capable of this?

Where else?

Thanks to Obama's anti-terrorist polices, including the overuse of drones and grossly intrusive N.S.A. surveillance, even formerly friendly foreign leaders such as Angela Merkel are estranged. Also, Delima Rouseff, the president of Brazil, will not longer talk civilly with Obama thanks to our listening in on her private communications. Was any of this spying necessary? Are we safer for it? It is difficult to imagine anyone believes we are.

The Japanese have less and less use for us; and the Chinese, resenting Obama's "tilt" to Asia, if they didn't hold so much of our debt, would distance themselves further from us than at present. They have not been helpful in containing the North Korean nuclear threat and equally uninterested in weighing in about nuclear proliferation in Iran. The want the oil. And, frankly, our T-Bills.

Turkey, once held up as the ideal moderate Islamic nation, is unraveling and we have totally lost influence there. And forget Sudan, Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, or the Central African Republic.

I could go on.

Making this list late last night got me good and depressed. What, happened, I wondered, to all that initial promise now so dissipated?

One could say that sometimes out of nationalistic chaos a new, preferable order will emerge. What we are seeing are the final gasps of a failed colonial paradigm. The remnants of 18th century empires; the redrawing of the redrawn borders at the end the First World War; and yes, America's economic empire. All are in their death throes. And death throes are always painful and difficult.

On the other hand, I thought, might there be some important cases where the Obama foreign policy is actually working?

What about India, I asked myself. I haven't heard much from there recently except occasional nuclear saber rattling over border disputes with Pakistan. Weren't we substantially estranged from them during the Cold War? Wasn't India tilted toward the Soviets? Yes, but haven't we in recent years been able to establish a "special relationship" with them? Facilitated by that fact that both of us are leery of China? Actually, hasn't Barack Obama been adept at maintaining and filling in the details of what that special relationship could mean? Didn't he call our relationship with India the "defining partnership of the 21st century"?

Indeed he did, when he visited in 2010. So what have I been reading recently in the New York Times?

Sadly, more of the same.

As reported there, "Almost four years later, the United States and India have found themselves on opposite sides of the world's most important diplomatic issues," from Ukraine where India is siding with the Russians to disagreeing about U.S. military policy in Afghanistan.

A senior Indian diplomat summed matters up this way--"There is a feeling that no one in this administration is a champion of the India-U.S. relationship." That should not be. India is the second most populace nation and has a burgeoning economy. Having a sound relationship with them should be a national priority.

When looking for an explanation about how, in this instance, high hopes have been dashed, Jonah Blank, an analyst of the now nonpartisan RAND cooperation said--

In this administration there is a small group of people in the White House making all the decisions, so issues that are important but not urgent rarely get the attention they deserve.

This sounds sadly familiar. Many who have written about the inner workings of the Obama White House say the same thing--Obama has chosen to cut himself off from almost all outside influence and depends upon a very few ultra-trusted advisors who go back to his Chicago days.

He famously said after being elected, "Make no new friends in Washington." At that he has been remarkably successful

This may be a good approach to negotiating one's way though the political thicket in the Windy City but no way to run the world.

November 27, 2013--Fajr and Sijil

At times, the tragic and the absurd merge to become indistinguishable. I can think of no better sad example than the recent case of the lion cubs of Palestine.

Last week two were born in, of all places, the Gaza Strip. Hamas proclaimed this blessed event as evidence that life goes on quite well in even this godforsaken and embattled place.

And, of course, they gave credit to themselves for creating the political and cultural environment that enabled this to occur. Sort of like what the Soviets used to do with Olympic athletes--shoot them full of hormones so that they would win dozens of gold medals and then cite that as proof of the superiority of their system.

But then the cubs, Fajr and Sijil, "dawn" and "stones of clay" in Arabic, proclaimed by Hamas to be symbols of "resistance, beauty, power, and strength," died.

Ignoring the craziness of attempting to breed and raise wild animals in such a forbidding environment, Hamas blamed, who else, Israel for the cubs demise.

Never mind that raising lions in captivity requires sophisticated zoological facilities and expert veterinary care (the mother lion, which is not unusual for animals in zoos, refused to feed the cubs) and they need to be monitored at all times (the lioness last Tuesday stepped on and killed the cubs), it was still all Israel's fault.

Hamas claimed this was because an Israeli warplane dropped three bombs on a Jihad training camp in northern Gaza not far from the zoo and this spooked the lioness who then . . .

Aware of the emotion surrounding the birth and untimely death of the two cubs, Israel quickly let it be known that the bombing was in retaliation for attacks on them earlier in the day, by rockets Hamas calls fajr.

There are a dozen so-called zoos in the Gaza Strip. According to the New York Times, at one, workers painted stripes on two donkeys and passed them off as zebras; at another, Hamas zookeepers stuffed dead animals and put them on display. I assume a similar fate awaits Fajr and Sijil.

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 3, 2013: Syria

I don't know how to think about Syria much less what we should or shouldn't do.

On Saturday I listened to President Obama lay out his thinking. I was not impressed. I know he has drawn a red-line, saying that if the Assad regime uses chemical weapons he will have us punish them.

I am wondering, though, why killing 100,000 thus far in the civil war there isn't a red line in itself. I suppose it's how you kill innocent people that counts. If Assad kills them with guns and bombs and rockets the U.S. can stay out of it; if he kills 1,400 with nerve gas we feel compelled to intervene militarily and "degrade" Syria's ability to do so again.

But I recognize that when a leader establishes a red line--which for strategic and even tactical reasons is not a good idea--if he doesn't carry out whatever it is he threatened, other bad people will assume he can be rolled by them as well. Iranians might be inclined to assume they can continue their nuclear weapons programs and the U.S. will back off when that red line is breached.

So to maintain credibility Obama has to launch a "limited" attack on Syria, assuming Congress agrees, perhaps more to send a message to Iran than to Syria.

Of one thing I am certain--that whatever we do or don't do will have many unintended consequences.

All bad.

For starters, there is more than a likelihood that various factions in the region who support Assad will attack Israel, our client state, since they can't attack us directly. If they use poison gas against them, with the Holocaust still very much in Jewish people's minds, Israel will respond massively. What will that reap?

Again, nothing good.

And though various groups of Islamists can't easily attack us in the homeland, it seems likely that there will be a step-up in global terrorist activity. I wouldn't want to be an embassy worker anywhere in the world after we send hundreds of cruise and tomahawk missiles toward Damascus.

Isn't it likely that Iran and Hezbollah will send scores of their fighters and Jihadists to Syria to fight off the rebels as well as to demonstrate their prowess to both Israel and the United States? Will Israel live comfortably with that? The last time they fought in Lebanon and Syria they were effectively defeated by Hezbollah. They have been itching for an opportunity, a justification to have a do-over.

So much of what goes on in that part of the world has to do with posturing and displaying manhood. In other words, behavior there (actually, everywhere) is often emotionally-driven and thus unpredictable since when in the throes of passion all bets are off and individuals as well as peoples often act in ways that appear self-destructive. That is until one deciphers the inner logic.

Suicide-bombing, for example, which might seem the ultimate expression of self-destructiveness (literally so), if one believes that it leads to martyrdom and directly to heaven, makes great "sense."

But here's what really does make sense, though it has no chance whatsoever of happening--

Redraw the map of the region. Actually, redraw the maps of all former-colonial regions. 

The maps we currently live with, which are the cause of much of the religious, nationalistic, and sectarian fighting we are seeing, were drawn up by the victorious big powers (mainly Britain, the United States, and France) at the end of the First World War.

Thus, countries such as Syria, Tunisia, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and Palestine (to name just some) are all artificial constructs that ignore tribal and cultural borders as well as deep history.

Syria, for example, a forced  amalgam of 140 tribes and clans, some that traverse borders with Egypt and Tunisia, could easily be divided into three to 10 tribal regions. Ditto for Iraq.

Where is Kurdistan? Nowhere. It doesn't exist on any map but it is a large cultural region that spans parts of 1919-created countries Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria.

If we could see redrawn the national borders to create Kurdistan, tensions in that region would ebb significantly.

And if we could see that happen for the rest of the Middle East and, for that matter, all of Africa and portions of Asia, the world be a much more peaceful place.

So, maybe, here's the solution--

Big powers back off. Let the various factions fight it out. Let them exhaust themselves and eventually hope they come to their senses and agree, without the necessity of discussing it that much, to redraw their own borders so that a Kurdistan emerges as well as a few countries for Sunnis and more for the Shia.

Libya, as another example, would disappear and in its place we would have, at a minimum, Barqa, Ubaidat, Mughariba, and Awejeer. Others clans there would undoubtedly demand their own delineated territory and they would have to be accommodated. But being aggregated into a place called "Libya" isn't working, won't work, and eventually will no longer be sustained.

This fantasy of mine would take at least 100 years to be realized. But since this is where we're inevitably headed, we might as well let it start.

That process, among other things, means allowing and encouraging the current simmering and boiling conflicts to stutter to a stalemate. It also means that the U.S. not attack Syria.

Stalemate makes sense since there is no possible way for anyone, any country (us included) to "win."

Things just have to work out. This means waiting for things to revert to their cultural and historical roots--people are by DNA tribal and thus happiest, most satisfied if they are able to live with their own "kind."

For people who wish to live otherwise, there is always Western Europe and the United States.

August 16, 2013--Arab Winter

Fridays in August should be times for languor and light spiritedness. Pass by this then if you want to protect your tranquility, but I cannot resist saying a few words about the escalating crises in the Middle East.

With a state of emergency declared in Egypt--after hundreds there were slaughtered by the military in an attempt to take the country back from the democratically-elected leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood--with continued unrest in Bahrain; democracy under threat in Tunisia, Iraq, Libya, and possibly even Turkey; and an all-out civil war raging in Syria, what ever became of the hope engendered by the Arab Spring that commenced in Tunisia more than two years ago?  The hope that authoritarian leaders from Muammar al-Gaddafi in Libya to Hosni Mubarak in Egypt would topple one-by-one and liberal democracies would take their places?

Isn't this what Barack Obama early in his presidency in a speech in Cairo saw to be the strategic opportunity in the region? And wasn't it for this that he was awarded a preemptive Nobel Peace Prize?

But now we have this--a tectonic nightmare of old authoritarian regimes overthrown and supplanted by radical leaders, many of whom either have ties to al Qaeda or tolerate their presence. Who foresaw that this would be the last gasp of 19th century colonialism and the dawn of a complicated new day in the Muslim world? 

Actually, many did who knew anything about the history of the Arab lands and the contesting forces active in every country throughout the region.

Does anyone doubt that events in Egypt will lead to a civil war there at least as ugly as the one underway in Syria? With the military government so casual about murdering hundreds of protesters isn't it inevitable that this will not suppress the opponents of military rule but motivate and inspire them to become more aggressive, ultimately take up arms, and prevail?

Is there any doubt that at some point in the not distant future we will see similar situations in Jordan and even Saudi Arabia where corrupt monarchies currently rule?

Then what we will have? A region in full turmoil with access to oil severely restricted. What will then be the consequences for the global economy? 

The ideals espoused by Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama in historical perspective look naive. 

Not everyone wants a government similar to ours (in fact, a majority of Americans themselves aren't too happy with the state of our own current government), not every country (especially those with arbitrary borders drawn up by the West after the First World War) is culturally set up to embrace democracy. And when they do fight for and achieve the right to vote--with our endorsement--they elect leaders from Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood. 

This is just another sad example of unintended consequences, of the danger of getting what one wishes for.