Author Archives: Anthony De Benedict

About Anthony De Benedict

More about Anthony: https://www.aculpableinnocence.com/Bio.htm

Systemic Depression

Leave a reply

I have to confess to a propensity for paradox, both in the titles of my books and of this blog. Do I mean to say that systems can be depressed or depressing? Well, both perspectives seem valid to me, depending upon their effect upon themselves or upon us. My intent here is to engage you, my reader, with a different way to adjudge our human systems and to envision the 21st century. Let me explain.

In an interconnected world, there is almost always a flipside to the most well-intentioned actions. The United Nations, for example, is a global organization involved in humanitarian and peace missions around the world. In order to meet its goals, it must identify patterns and interdependencies where its intervention or manipulation can be effective. It is a system like any of the systems with which it interacts. Naturally its purpose is to make these systems work well and serve humanity. Occasionally, however, we hear about its limitations: cost overruns, ineffective peacekeeping forces, failed peace talks, and so on. But do any of us understand what really went wrong or where the ball was dropped? We have a general idea of the U. N. as an organizational system without explicit knowledge of its inner working. There are many things on the global stage that are beyond our specific knowledge. For example, we know that Daesh is a terrorist organization that has opportunistically inserted itself into the civil unrest in Syria and that Russia has orchestrated a similarly opportunistic intervention in Crimea and Ukraine as a result of political unrest in Kiev. But do we know the specifics about what plans are being undertaken, what contending ambitions are afoot, or what various end states can be anticipated. Our lack of knowledge of how these and many other systems or organizations interrelate can be very depressing. We are at a point in history when we know more about world events than ever before without really knowing their roots or trajectory. Whether it is the U. N., a sovereign nation, or a jihadist group with a world domination ethos, the inner workings and prospects of these entities on the world stage are mainly hidden from view. As a result, it becomes problematic to predict outcomes and to avoid unintended consequences. The interaction of large systems can look like a pinball machine on steroids. For example, the interactions between the U. N., Daesh, and Russia has triggered trade sanctions, refugee crises, bombing campaigns, terrorists’ attacks, humanitarian aid shortfalls, and unprecedented suffering and destruction. And the cycle of depressed and depressing states persists both within and without these self-propelled systems on the international stage.

The same conflicted situation exists within our national borders. The United States is not only the world’s oldest democracy, but a recognized super power—militarily, financially, and technologically. Yet it would be difficult to explain how our government’s internal systems actually function. Few of us understand our tax system or the extent of our regulatory structure. We know there are billions of dollars unaccounted for in many of our systems: Medicare fraud, wasteful government contracts, unregistered military expenditures, tax evasion schemes, and so on. Systemic failures often raise unanswered questions. For example, why does it take years to repair a structurally unsound bridge, to file a mere report on water delivery systems, to revise legislation with unintended, even damaging consequences, and so on? What can be said about our national government can also be said about state and local governments. When faced with the depressive complexity of our governmental systems, we can become both perplexed and depressed. And so the same cycle of depressed and depressing system states persists on the national, state, and local governmental stage.

Now if international, national, and local governmental systems seem impenetrable, they may yet appear less opaque than the systems of behavior we experience with our family and work associates. Why does “Uncle Harry always get under my skin?” Why does the holiday meal with family tend unerringly to descend into the same adolescent contentions? Our family relations operate according to systems of behavior developed over time. These systems can be not only dysfunctional and difficult to change, but are often inscrutable and sometimes depressing as well. Even within the intimate relationships of family, we may find ourselves caught in a cycle of depressed and depressing states. In fact, if work place surveys are to be believed, many of us feel disassociated with the hierarchical structure a/o operational environment that govern our daily job performance. It can be easy to conclude that we are lost in a world of confusing complexity and governed by systems that function at all levels beyond our understanding or even awareness. And that conclusion is indeed depressing.

You may be wondering whether I have a cure for systemic depression. Well, I can offer an explanation that may make it easier to adjust to the many systems we encounter and are in fact creating. As we develop new technologies and further extend the scope of communications, our systems will become even more impenetrable to the majority of us. But there are at least two things we need to know. First, nature is a bundle of interlocking systems of which we are an integral part. It is as natural for us to create systems as it is for us to live. In fact, our physical being is no more than a collection of interdependent systems (Reference, “A Congregation of Life Forms”). The obvious remedy for systemic depression is to emulate nature—to create systems that interrelate and reinforce the natural systems in the world and within us. Second, we need to accept the uniqueness and limitations of the human perspective. We perceive the world after our own fashion, not as it presents itself to us. For example, we perceive the arrow of time as a constant, not as a variable relative to our place in a swirling and expanding universe. We also feel fixed in our place, not passengers riding a fast moving planet. In fact, even the fixed space we think we occupy is actually bent and curved in proportion to the mass of this planet. We owe Einstein for these revelations and science in general for an understanding of our perceptual boundaries. The world reflected in our eyes is no more than a construct of our brain’s neurons. And the same can be said of all our senses. We are of the stuff of the world in which we live and yet apart from it as well.

All animal species are part of and dependent upon natural systems. We, however, can also create systems, some of which have negative feedback loops, like some of those already referenced or the carbon based energy systems recently discussed in Paris. But I am an optimist, for I believe the 21st century can be a tipping point for our race. If we learn to build systems that enhance our nature, protect our environment, enable us to live in harmony with interrelated systems and with each other as people, communities and nations, we will rid ourselves of systemic depression and create a new world order. Otherwise, we will become overwhelmed with systemic depression. Correlated with this learning is the necessity to admit our subjectivity. Circumscribed by our senses and constrained by the limitations of our self-conception, we need contact with others and the world in all its complexity to help us solve the mystery of our self-isolation, our subjectivity. This mystery is the basis for that humility born of introspection and for that unbridled urge to connect. When we deny this mystery, we replace humility and the need for connection with the aphrodisiac of control and dominance, that is, of unmitigated hubris. We create systems that serve our self-interest while defying our human interest. This is the mystery at the heart of so many religions. Remember the Hindu and Buddhist prayerful bow in recognition of the divinity in another person, or Christ’s statement, “I and the Father are one,” or Mohamed’s equating of each individual with the human race as a whole, “whoso kills a soul . . . it shall be as if he has killed all mankind.” All religions beg the question Kant asked, “What is man.” Each of us is a world onto itself, with an overwhelming need to reach beyond the self, to relate to all we encounter, to identify with a world as mysterious as our very nature.

Given this nobility of spirit, how can we violate our humanity with the construction of so many ignoble systems? It is truly depressing to become victims of such systems. They can arbitrarily destroy lives and livelihoods. We should not create systems that degrade the individual human being: systems that discriminate against certain classes, ostracize individuals for their beliefs, deliver excessive punishments, or mistreat women, children, the elderly and the disabled. For each human stands alone before the world, dependent upon nature, yet independent in perception and creativity. Not one of us can be duplicated. If we learn to respect each and every individual, we will build systems that better serve our natural world and the human race as a whole.

A Wartime Lover’s Lament

Leave a reply

In sleep you await the breaking dawn
While I lay awake in dread of light
For I will linger here in our bond
Until duty rips asunder our night

A web of hyphae I spawn at your roots
To prepare your strength like a goddess moon
So you may walk harmless in your boots
Invincible hero returning soon

One day I too will bear your spore
To complete the symbiosis we share
But not until you return from war
To rekindle the fire of the love we bear

Caressing your body in darkness now
I dread its loss and fear my plight
If you die, never to see the light,
My love entombed and out of sight

Not just your death, but mine foretold
A lover’s lament, too often retold.

AJD, 12/27/2015

The Trump Bump

Leave a reply

Among the two thousand or so subscribers to this blog I suspect there are both Republicans and Democrats. Perhaps you have wondered what might be my party affiliation. The answer is that I have none. I have at different times in my life registered for both major Parties and have voted for nominees in those Parties and the Independent Party. So, you may ask, why have I singled out Donald Trump in my title when I usually critique politicians without mentioning their names? The answer is that I am not going to single out Mr. Trump. Instead, my intent is to try to explain his phenomenon: what some might call the Trump bump in the polls.

This blog addresses something that is so obvious that it goes unspoken in political discussions and in the broadcast media. The issue of Trump’s “success” in the polls has little to do with Trump. As a candidate for President, he exudes the same passion for America—or, at least, for his understanding and vision of America—that you might expect of any candidate. That passion is only exceeded by his passion for himself. But, then, ego has never been missing in political candidates. No, Trump’s “success” does not reflect on his qualities as a candidate, but on the mindset of his supporters. And here is where I see the problem.

History has welcomed demagogues at opportune times to call the masses to reform, self-sacrifice, a radical movement, or even revolution. The masses, however, only respond when properly prepared for the demagogue’s message. Our current President is a prime example. Seven years ago, Americans voted for a gifted speaker who promised to change the course of the previous Administration in terms of both domestic and foreign policies. The electorate was not only war weary, but caught up in the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression. His campaign was perfectly poised to win, even though his opponents had more experience in politics and in government. But once in office he was begrudged his victory and faced more political opposition than any President in recent memory. And there is the root of the problem.

At the outset of the Obama Presidency, the Republicans in Congress decided to make him a one term President. Nothing he proposed would be approved by Republicans, not even if he championed their policies. For example, they disregarded his support for the Heritage Foundation’s proposal for health care reform, for ‘sequester’ as a means of controlling Federal spending, for most aspects of the Patriot Act, for military action against Gaddafi, for his extensive use of drones against terrorists in non-enemy countries, for a rise in oil production on lands that fell under Federal jurisdiction, and for doubling down on Bush’s sanctions against Iran. Even though all but the first two actions were initiated during the Bush Presidency, Republicans were against them. The ‘sequester’ and mandated health care through exchanges were Republican proposals. Yet they impertinently strung these proposals around the President’s neck like millstones. The Affordable Care Act they termed a “job killer,” even ‘Hitlerist’ in its impact. His military support for NATO’s bombing of Libya they derided as “leading from behind.” In addition, every executive order undertaken by this Presidency was met with the Hitler attribution. This former Constitutional law professor was being accused of violating the Constitution on enumerable occasions. He was called a friend to terrorist, likely a closeted Muslim (a misattributed and nonsensical insult). Republicans painted him as an apologist for radical Islamic fundamentalists because he appeared far too conciliatory to Muslims as a whole. The legitimacy of his Presidency was called into question on several occasions: his citizenship by birthright was repeatedly questioned; his executive orders easing the burden on migrants have given rise to talk of impeachment. The impeachment question is particularly ironic since two previous Republican Presidents issued similar executive orders without protests. And his Republican predecessor had gone well past President Obama’s executive orders when he proposed immigration reform legislation that included a path to citizenship.

The Republican Party, even when it was in the minority, refused to be the loyal opposition in favor of being solely THE opposition. Later, after winning a majority in both houses of Congress, they were emboldened to snub the President even on matters of national security. When the President asked for their concurrence in bombing Syria over its use of chemical weapons, the Party united in doing nothing, never even bringing a motion of support to the floor for debate. Since February of this year, the President has repeatedly asked for war powers authorization to unite the country in America’s ongoing campaign against Daesh. The Republican majority has declined to support the war, while continually criticizing the President for not having a strategy to defeat Daesh. When asked for specific recommendations, Republican and some Democratic members of Congress have proposed measures already being taken or being actively considered by the Administration. My point is that the seven yearlong harangue and non-support of this President has created an atmosphere of distrust and dissatisfaction that has given rise to the Trump ascendancy in the Republican electorate. The San Bernardino terrorist attack has only added fuel to this demagogue’s fiery rhetoric. The Republican Party has long been preparing its constituency for this moment. The fact that the Party is now splintered into two opposing factions is self-explanatory. It is now reaping the result of the seeds it has sowed. In place of the pragmatism and business acumen of the past, the Party must now address in its body politic the discordant voices of xenophobia, incipient fascism, war mongering, support for torture, and even a proposal to “eliminate terrorist family members.” Perhaps saddest of all: the time to recover a broken Party may have already passed.

The emergence of the Trump bump may be a new phenomenon, but it actually began seven years ago. When the Republican Party decided to be naysayers in government, they created a vacuum in Congress and polarized Americans. Developing good policy became secondary to political gamesmanship. A portion of their constituency apparently could not see through their game face: they had successfully created the illusion of a liberal President violating First and Second Amendment rights, using his executive authority like a dictator, exposing America to terrorism, opening American borders to foreigners, and effectively destroying the American way of life. That illusion tilled the field for the demagogue that many Republicans now rue. He speaks to a base constituency that apparently comprises a quarter to a third of the Republican Party. And that constituency wants to establish fortress America, bar access to all migrants or refugees, and assuage fear by converting the U. S. into a police state within and an uncompromising and unrestrained military force without. More than the voice of conservatism may have been lost to Republicans. The Grand Ole Party may have opened the door for a type of radicalism far more dangerous than what we witnessed in the Japanese internments during World War II or the McCarthy communist purge of the 1950s.

The Republican Party has won the Presidency without winning the popular vote. Now they have won control of Congress without winning the popular vote. It is time for the Party to reform itself from within. Begin winning a majority of the electorate with policies that serve the public good instead of winning electoral seats with legal maneuvers, gerrymandering, rabblerousing, and saber-rattling. The country needs true conservatives to balance its innate liberalism. Remember America was founded by a revolution and is a secular democratic state governed by law instead of an oligarchy, aristocracy, organized religion, or dictator. Liberalism is built into our constitution. True conservatism protects that constitution against the potential excesses of liberalism. We need a respected Republican Party that holds America to its founding principles and protects its liberal origins. The current Party does neither.

The Origin of War

1 Reply

Some decades ago I read a book by Julian Jaynes (“The Origen of Consciousness in the Bicameral Brain”). It seemed to address an inexplicable conundrum I faced at the time. I had been reading the Old Testament and was surprised by all the blood shed between various tribes, much of it commanded by Yahweh. I questioned what could motivate someone to kill an absolute stranger. Jaynes’ answer, as I would now characterize it, was fear, originating from the tribal culture or a commanding inner voice born from the unconscious experiences of the individual in that culture. According to his theory, the discriminatory internal dialogue that might have dissuaded that fear did not exist in the ancient bicameral brain. I wonder to what extent it exists in the ongoing tribal conflicts of the Middle East today: Turkmen against Shi’a, Turks and Kurds against each other, Shi’a and Sunni against each other, Alawites and other Syrian groups/tribes against each other, and Daesh against all tribes whom they label infidels, worthy of death.

Now evolution is a wonderful and complex process that in theory enhances the survival of a species by selecting the fittest. For example, modern man has far surpassed his primate predecessors in reasoning and development of language. But these capabilities arose from lifestyle activities that enhanced survivability. For example, early members of our species used their hands to forage and invent tools. These activities promoted the development of the human frontal lobe, the main locus for reasoning and for the ability to reflect before taking action. If my memory serves me, Jaynes theorized that trans-lateral communication in the bicameral brain evolved in conjunction with language ability, thereby allowing speech and reasoning to work together and permitting that self-talk that precedes directed action a/o procrastination. In other words, humans no longer reacted at the behest of an inner voice or habit enculturated by familial or social lifestyle. The modern human was born, free to pursue individual goals and define overriding values independently of society, thereby providing unique contributions to society. This physical evolution coincides with the creation of human culture, civilization, and a myriad of achievements in science, philosophy, art, and systems of morality. It has also enabled us to respect each other as unique individuals, not just members of disparate tribes, and to learn how to live side-by-side without killing each other. In other words, our development as a species into complex, introspective individuals governed by conscience can be attributed to our need to co-exist without fear of each other, that is, to survive as a species. Terrorism works against that need by inciting fear, tribal conflict, and the suppression of personal conscience in favor of the tribal imperative. In evolutionary terms, it appears as regressive as if birds were to lose their wings, fish, their gills, and mammals, their body heat. But the good news is that evolution is not regressive–unlike behavior.

Jaynes believed the inner voice experienced by our ancient ancestors was isolated in the right brain and was sometimes interpreted as the voice of a god, genii, or spirits. It was obeyed without thought. The followers of Daesh obey a theocratic system without any thought of its regressive nature. Naturally that system cannot be a survival technique and must be apocalyptic. Daesh’s mission, by its very nature, culminates in a dead-end. Those who follow its path must believe that an afterlife is better than the current life. There is no room for contemporary humanism, or the preservation of human life and creativity in the here and now. Though they are modern humans on the evolutionary scale, they are retrograde in their humanity, pledging themselves to a mindless tribal culture that lashes out at a world they fear and from which they feel estranged. Thousands of these sick souls have already died. Like the suicide bombers in Paris, they readily accept death, especially if they can take as many infidels as possible with them. Their hatred for humanity is the ultimate measure of their fear of joining it. To be truly human is to be accountable for all humans. There is nothing more cowardly than to deny our responsibility to each other.

Evolution may be wonderful and complex, but it comes with some baggage. Unfortunately, the nation-states our species has created still interrelate like chimpanzees fighting over territory and resources (reference “The Rule of the Primate”). We respond to danger like terrorized chimps. You may have had occasion to watch a nature channel and witnessed the loud ruckus those little monkeys create when a lion passes into their space. If at the time you had turned the channel to one of the 24 hour news broadcasts, you likely would have observed the same ruckus and fear mongering. The news media is often riveted on violence, mayhem, and, most recently, on the threat of terrorism. By way of comparison, we know that Americans have killed each other in much greater numbers than terrorist have since 911. But threats from outside seem more frightening and trigger us to raise the banner of war, even before we consider the consequences (reference “Is War Fever Enough?“). Stated simply, the lion has crossed into our physical or virtual space.

Too easily we may succumb to the feeling that war is inevitable. We are confronted with an enemy who terrorizes without conscience. This enemy engenders fear and an instinctive warlike response. But there is another factor besides Daesh’s tribal imperative and the triggered response of the terrorized. That factor is the fog of war and what is commonly called the “slippery slope.” We are already on that slop, like a snow ball rolling down a hill. In the last few weeks we have seen that snow ball gathering momentum and mass. Turkey and Russia have joined the fracas, but on different sides than America. Turkey has bombed America’s proxy, the Kurds. Russia has bombed Turkey’s proxy, the Turkmen, and America’s proxy, the Free Syrian Army. Meanwhile, America continues to increase its supply of weapons, military trainers, and tactical assistance to any group willing to fight Daesh. Our President has tried to slow the progress of that snow ball with diplomatic measures. He has pushed the Iraqi Prime Minister to include the Sunni’s in Iraq’s National Guard and tried to persuade Russia and Iraq to support a timetable for Assad to step down. The Sunni’s in Iraq will fight Daesh, as their Members of Parliament have stated, but only if granted more self-government. They will not aid, and likely will contest, either an American “liberation” or a Shi’a invasion of their territory. Likewise, no peace is possible in Syria as long as Assad stays in power. Unfortunately his army may be the only local force that could overcome Daesh. The Syrians, however, will not support that army unless it fought for a truly representative government without Assad. These diplomatic undertakings are underway, though racing far behind the pace of war’s snow ball on that slippery slope.

There are strange and seemingly random turns in history, like the assassination of a President or an Archduke in Sarajevo (think Vietnam and World War I). I believe we are now confronted with one of those pivotal moments. If Russia and Iran will not support any timetable for Assad’s departure and if Iraq will not cede any role to the Sunni’s in government or in the military, then the Syrian civil war will continue unabated and Daesh’s territorial conquest in Syria and Iraq will be ineffectively contested. More troubling is the risk of a widening war, involving NATO countries, America, Russia, and the Middle East. Today Turkey shoots down a Russian plane; tomorrow Russia arms its fighter jets with air-to-air missiles and its ground forces with surface-to- air missiles. What happens if an American jet is mistakenly taken down? Cooler heads must prevail. We are after all evolved primates who have demonstrated an ability to live together in peace. We must find a way to sheath the sword wherever we can achieve rapprochement. We should not overreact by yielding to mindless aggression and avoid wherever possible situations that risks retaliatory overreaction. Instead, we should call for a cease fire on all fronts not involving Daesh and focus on protecting Syrian civilians and refugees. If an armistice is not possible, then the only voices to be heard will be from the professionals in the Pentagon and CIA. They will strongly advocate for an escalation in the bombing, for more Americans on the frontlines to coordinate fighting with air support, and for a loosening of the rules of engagement to admit more collateral damage. The result will be more civilian deaths, more refugees, a demolished infrastructure, a terrorist backlash against the world, and a Daesh recruitment bonanza. The pivotal point I see is the balance between the deployment of sufficient military force to support diplomacy and devolution into all-out war, as some have proposed. The latter would reprise America’s Vietnam enterprise where we attempted to liberate a people by killing them off and where the embattled country required decades to reconstruct its infrastructure. Also, it should be noted, we supported a corrupt government in Vietnam during a civil war. How is that different than our support for the Iraqi government or potentially, if Putin has his way, for Assad’s government? That snow ball is gaining mass and momentum.

In time, I believe Daesh will be defeated; but its damage has already gone far beyond the borders of its self-declared caliphate. Its regressive and viral message has not only infiltrated Syria and Iraq but young minds around the world. Its message will not die with the violent extremists in Syria and Iraq or the potential terrorists already in our midst. Nevertheless, it must be confronted and eradicated. Otherwise, there will be no world peace. That peace can only be achieved by a global conscience emanating from all tribes and people. America, in fact, is trying to lead the world away from a widening conflict and toward a more stable post-Daesh horizon. Whether that horizon is feasible or not is yet to be determined. I do not disagree with those who advocate the use of military force. But force alone will not win the day. It must serve a much broader agenda—the awakening of a new zeitgeist that spans all nations, embraces the highest values of humanity, and makes tribal anachronisms like Daesh impossible.

A global conscience begins with each individual. The origin of war is rooted in our very nature: a reactive fear of the unknown other whom we instinctively deem our enemy. We objectify and dehumanize that enemy as Nazis, gooks, japs, ragheads, and so on. But there is another way to confront the objectified enemy. First, we can begin to see that enemy as fellow humans who have a different perspective than us. If we have to fight terrorists, we at least have to know what motivates them. Understanding them might allow us to reach their converts before they are turned. We have to form better relationships with the people of Islam in order to fight Islamists (i.e., violent fundamentalist or extremists). By report, Daesh may have 30,000 fighters plus another 10,000 casualties of war and a three or four times larger group of worldwide followers. Even so, they would still represent less than a fraction of one percent of the nearly 2 billion Muslims in the world. We need to develop one-to-one relations with people and communities of the Islamic faith. Second, we need to confront our fears and resist the herd mentality to either huddle in fear or react with disproportionate violence. We live in a world where nation states are armed and dangerous. If Ukraine still had nuclear weapons, would they have restrained from using them against the Russian aggressor? If an American soldier was captured by Daesh and burned alive like the Jordanian pilot was, could we be constrained from laying waste to Raqqa, without regard to collateral damage? We cannot be terrorized if we face our fears with an appropriate response, measured by reason and human compassion. And finally, we must impress upon world leaders the need for such a balanced response. Here, in America, where we are in the midst of a presidential campaign, it is imperative that we not support fear mongers and xenophobic opportunists who cater to our more basic instincts rather than our more evolved human attributes. They use mass hysteria to gain title and power. Put bluntly, they lack a developed conscience and cannot be trusted in any leadership role. Of course, I exclude from this condemnation all who constructively participate in the dialogue about the best course of action against an enemy like Daesh. I am no expert upon the difficult decisions required in taking negotiating positions between nations, in revamping rules of engagement, in deploying our military force, and in constructing the most effective anti-terror propaganda campaign. As an individual citizen, I can only do my best to support leaders who appear to deserve my trust and, of course, to make my opinions known.

Considering the gist of what I have just wrote, I would conclude by saying that war originates in our very nature, is born of fear, is magnified in collective hysteria, and is further instigated by the chaos created by the indiscriminate misbehavior of nation states and their respective leaders. If we, as individuals, think past our fears, form constructive relations with each other, including those different from us, and support thoughtful and compassionate leaders, we can at least do our part in building a more human and, hopefully, more peaceful world.

Is War Fever Enough?

Leave a reply

France has stepped up its bombing in Syria, replacing some of the American bombing missions. Russia has unleashed cruise missiles and a barrage of firepower from its fighter bombers on Raqqa, the “capital” city of Daesh (otherwise known as ISIS or ISIL). Although France’s action adds nothing to the existing chaos in Syria, Russia’s does for several reasons. First, Russian bombers do not return to base with undelivered ordinance, as do many of the American bombing missions. Russia shows no restraint. Second, the sheer size of their bombardment implies its lack of concern for the civilian population. By contrast, remember how “Jihadi John” was tracked for several days before he could be isolated in a car and killed by a drone strike. Also, take note of what has been missing in the American air campaign: there has been no Daesh propaganda about civilians killed at the hands of the Americans. The Russians, on the other hand, have taken a different course, changing the rules of engagement. Both France and Russia, each in its own way, are responding to an act of war. America’s air campaign and support for indigenous forces have a very different impetus, namely, Daesh containment while pursuing a diplomatic solution to Syria’s civil war (reference “What Strategy”). Given the evolution of this civil war and of Daesh’s projection of terror attacks beyond Syria and Iraq, American tactics have changed as well, though its underlying strategy has not, at least not yet.

Many in the media and on the opposing end of the political divide would argue that the American Administration is misguided in its goals, inept in its actions, and not sufficiently opportunistic in advancing its position. Stated bluntly—and repeated tirelessly—the “Administration has no strategy.” Actually, what this refrain reveals is that many pundits and political opponents simply disagree with the current American strategy. The reason for this disagreement is the apparent shortcomings of that strategy. A more effective strategy is rarely offered, but is most assuredly implied: an American a/o coalition ground attack against Daesh. The French President seems poised to invoke NATO’s Article 5. Meanwhile, Russia’s President is taking another opportunity to extend his hegemony into the Middle East. The pressure on our President to deploy combat brigades in Syria is growing. The consequent anticipation of war in the American media is growing to a fever pitch. Our politicians foresee an impending crisis, decry the slow pace of the Administration’s current strategy, and demand immediate action. Given history, these Cassandra-like proclamations are often the preambles to war. Even the Catholic Pontiff now warns of World War III.

But cries of war drown out very serious ramifications. How would a new allied army attack and destroy Daesh without contending with the many factions already fighting against the Assad government and each other? Is it feasible for NATO, Russia and the United States to invade Syria, destroy Daesh, and parcel the country like the Allies divvied up Europe after World War II? Russia, perhaps with the help of existing Iranian forces, could form a puppet government in the west, NATO might bequeath the north to Turkey’s administration, and America would undoubtedly advocate for—and likely provide material support to—Kurdish self-government in the east. But would the diverse indigenous population support this arrangement? Sunni’s would not welcome either Shi’a rule in the west, Kurd rule in the east, or Turkey rule in the north. Besides, the presence of an invading foreign military would likely incur the same Sunni insurgency American forces faced in Iraq. In order to avoid this post-invasion quagmire, it would become an urgent necessity to form a Syrian government to reconcile all fractions beforehand. But who could lead this fractious state? And how could any unified Syria afford to reconstruct itself after the horrendous effects of a multi-year civil war and of an invasion by heavily armed foreign militaries. Unless the allied countries supported a decades-long reconstruction, Syria could not possibly survive as an independent country. And it is questionable whether Daesh jihadists in Libya, Nigeria, Afghanistan, and affiliates in North Africa and South Asia would be deterred from future terrorist attacks. In summary, defeating Daesh in Syria may not curtail terrorist attacks prompted by its beliefs; and its eradication from Syria raises many questions that severely tasks international diplomacy.

At this time, Europe, America, and Russia have begun to address the diplomatic questions just raised. The Vienna conference led by our Secretary of State has begun the process. The conference has agreed to the need for a cease fire between Assad’s government and diverse rebel forces. Russia has ordered the immediate cessation of barrel bombs. If all parties in the Syrian civil war agree to a cease fire—which is problematic—then an allied coalition force could presumably engage Daesh on the ground and eliminate its hold on territory. However, this initial agreement would be no more than a temporary armistice. Could it possibly stand the test of time without a resolution of the underlying issues that divide Syria today and without a post war reconstruction plan? Not only do the fighting Syrian factions present a diplomatic challenge now; but their possible post-unification does as well. Will Assad ever agree to step down? Who would fund a Syrian reconstruction effort? Would these various Syrian factions have competing goals? Might the allied forces that liberated Syria also have competing goals? For example, Turkey would like to be in a position to crush any potential Kurdish rebels on its borders. Russia, with Iran’s assistance, would likely demand a Shi’a government over much or perhaps all of Syria. All of its initiatives in Syria intimate Russia would never give up its hegemony there. In large measure, Russia is responsible for creating the Syrian morass. It supported Assad against the rebels from the start. It intervened with a proposal to remove Syrian chemical weapons in order to stop the American President from bombing Assad and creating a no-fly zone over Syria (although Congress’ inaction had the same effect). It not only supplies Assad with weapons, but is now actively supporting his forces against the rebels with its air power. It seems unlikely that Russia would relinquish its foothold in Syria. Even Europe would find it difficult to put self-interest aside. Its history in the Middle East has drained European resources in the past. Why would it take upon itself a long term material and financial reconstruction effort at this time of European economic constraint? For its part, the Administration surely intends to be a fair broker at the diplomatic table; but it is reluctant to commit an American combat force in a ground war. Even if the war drums capture support from a majority of Americans, it seems very unlikely they will continue to support another costly military campaign in the Middle East. Some who might welcome a reversal of the President’s “no boots on the ground” decision, would be the first to denounce him for every setback and adverse outcome of that reversal.

In my opinion, the diplomatic challenges seem insurmountable; but they actually pale before the real problem. As many have said—and history affirms—an ideology cannot be defeated with weapons. It must be refuted. My previous blog on this topic addresses various tactics that may help us contain Daesh and discredit its message (reference “Is ISIL Utopia Dead on Arrival”). The Administration’s current strategy aims at a diplomatic solution, includes some of the tactics suggested in that blog, and encompasses much more. For example, the air campaign coupled with local ground forces has taken back about 25% of Daesh’s conquered territory, has established a safe zone on the Turkish border and a Kurdish stronghold in eastern Syria, has cut off the supply lines between Raqqa and Mosul, has severely damaged Daesh’s infrastructure and oil-based economy, has facilitated the success of rebels in central Syria to destroy much of Assad’s tank forces by means of a largely secret CIA-run arms supply network, and, as a result of the backlash to recent terrorist attacks, has refocused Russia on the Daesh threat and Europe on its security practices at airports, borders, passport controls, and intelligence gathering/sharing. The Daesh snake has been kicked in Syria and is now emerging from the bushes to attack beyond its borders. This evolution of Daesh is consistent with its beliefs. It recognizes no borders. Even if nations unite to squash its head, it will resurrect in other places. To some extent, it already has, in Africa, Asia, the Arab peninsula, and on the European continent. Meanwhile, it incites its adversaries to fight on its turf in Syria/Iraq. The image of martyrdom at the hands of the West it hopes will recruit more Moslems to its cause. Within the territory it controls, Daesh secures its rule by fear, slaughtering those who resist. At this moment, it has killed more Sunni’s than any group in recent history. As unappealing as its fundamentalist orthodoxy may appear to common sense, it has proven successful in drawing tens of thousands of recruits. It may take a generation or more to eradicate its poisonous and barbarous ideology. But that task is what remains for the rest of us. The best we can do is to support Islamic leaders who actively confront Daesh’s distortion of their beliefs and to learn more about modern Islam so that we can contribute to their grievance with Daesh.

You may have noticed that I am now using “Daesh” to describe this group. This usage is my humble attempt to align with Muslims who note that “Daesh” sounds similar to the Arabic words Daes, “one who crushes something underfoot”, and Dahes, “one who sows discord.” Daesh indeed crushes the innocent and spreads animosity, proving that it is not Islamic and undeserving of statehood. The world must respond with a sense of urgency by not only protecting the innocent—including the Syrian refugees—and denying Daesh territory, but also with a concerted effort to refute its message. That refutation must be more than propaganda aligned with our Muslim brothers and sisters. For it must address within Daesh’s recruit population the conditions that allow its apocalyptic message to take root. From what has been reported so far, Daesh recruits seem to be young males, who are disaffected from society and from opportunity. There may be many elements influencing these recruits, including poverty, discrimination, lack of education and jobs, or a sense of moral and spiritual emptiness. If a person is depressed or angry with his/her circumstances, Daesh provides a rationale for taking whatever one wants, for exterminating anyone who might interfere or disagree, and for elevating one’s status to a position of unaccountable power. That rationale is an apocalyptic theology, supposedly blessed by Allah.

We have seen the face of this evil before, in pogroms, crusades, inquisitions, and interfaith wars. For there is no greater evil in the world than that performed in the name of God. It relieves us of an attribute that most distinguishes us from our primate instincts: the individual responsibility each of us has to develop a conscience. No God or Allah will exempt us from that responsibility. Needless to say, Daesh followers have no conscience.

Keystone and the Politics of Diversion

Leave a reply

Last week TransCanada suspended its application to extend the Keystone XL pipeline across the U. S. border. Its CEO in a recent conference call said the company “needed time to work through the Nebraska review.” In January I wrote a blog that questioned whether TransCanada would persists with its U. S. pipeline extension plans or revert to an alternate strategy (reference “Keystone or Philosopher’s Stone”). At that time I indicated that the judicial process in Nebraska—and potentially in South Dakota as well—were the main obstacles confronting TransCanada and not the Obama Administration. The company had already cleared its main hurdles with the Administration: rerouting the pipeline to the outskirts of the mid-West aquafer and mitigating leakage concerns pursuant to winning approval of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in 2011. The EIS found “no significant impacts” from the pipeline.

Though approval of the Keystone pipeline appeared to fair better with the Administration than with the States, TransCanada still faced further obstacles before they could open new markets and satisfy demand for its heavy crude. That demand existed in Europe where supply had been mitigated by the Iran oil embargo and the steep pricing of the Russian supply network. The American Gulf Coast seemed the perfect venue for exporting oil to Europe. But refineries there were already operating at capacity. The company wanted Congress to pass a bill that would allow crude oil exports to Europe. Congress quickly obliged. But after years of dealing with American environmental concerns, lobbying Congress, and litigating in State courts, TransCanada decided to develop a backup plan—that is, an alternate route for their pipeline. First, it explored extending a pipeline to Canada’s Western coast where crude could be exported to China. Then, more recently, the company refocused its ambitions on the European market. Perhaps it reassessed the recent resurgence of Europe compared to the slowing Chinese economy. Ironically, its proposal for a Quebec pipeline alternative was turned down for environmental reasons. Not to be denied, the company proposed an all-Canadian Energy East pipeline to serve a prospective European market. The newly elected and more liberal Canadian government has indicated it will work with TransCanada, provided the company passes “a robust environmental review.” So the company was actually further along in the environmental review process with its American venture than its latest Canadian alternative. So its request to suspend its application for the Keystone XL pipeline was a surprise and, predictably, a reprise of fevered political debate.

In that same blog just referenced, I tried to debunk some of the politicized arguments pro and con on the proposed extension of this pipeline. Since Canadian crude would be produced and priced in response to world demand, only its production, not its means of transportation, was relevant to world pollution. Further, since its export was aimed primarily at Europe, it had no relevance to the U. S. economy or energy use. From an American perspective, what needed to be weighed was the obvious benefit of a safer means of transporting oil against the need to seize land from individual property owners by means of eminent domain. Nobody would prefer dealing with the enormous explosions of rail cars carrying Canadian crude to the prospect of repairing a leaky pipeline. On the other hand, the fair exercise of eminent domain is a civil rights issue emanating from natural law, the very foundation of our legal system. This legal matter was still in the courts when TransCanada suspended its application, allegedly in order “to work through the Nebraska review.” Its action might be expected to depoliticize the underlying issue. But it did not.

Several days after TransCanada asked the Administration for a suspension of its application, our President announced his concurrence with the State Department’s rejection of TransCanada’s application. Does anybody think the timing of this decision was not political? As I pointed out in my previous blog, the Administration’s approval would have no effect unless the effected States approved the pipeline extension. However, the Administration could have rejected the pipeline at any time, effectively killing the project. Since it did not, one could have presumed it would favor its deployment once the proposed pipeline passed the approval process in the States and in the EPA. After the EPA concluded the pipeline presented no significant environmental hazard, the only serious hurdle for TransCanada seemed to be the “Nebraska review” in civil court. But what and who should we believe about these recent announcements from TransCanada and our President? For the last seven years, TransCanada has pushed its case for constructing this pipeline, arguing that the pipeline would increase U. S. jobs and decrease American energy prices. It published “Facts and Myths” on the Web to debunk arguments to the contrary, while paradoxically pursuing alternative strategies to service non-North American markets and slyly ignoring the fact that base oil prices are fixed in the world market (and only rarely tweaked by local taxing authorities). Meanwhile, the President maintained a “wait and see” strategy while intimating his likely approval to the previous, more conservative Canadian Prime Minister and stonewalling the progressives and environmentalists within his own Party. Is it possible that his recent, and apparently precipitous, decision to reject TransCanada’s application was based on politics? TransCanada’s request for a suspension of Keystone might be the result of weighing the feasibility of its alternative, specifically, Energy East. Or it could also be a strategy to wait out this Administration, presuming more favorable consideration of its application by a new Administration. The current President, on the other hand, might be reacting to this political strategy; or he might be aligning with the consensus opinion of the Democratic presidential nominees who oppose Keystone. At any rate, I would agree with the President that the Keystone XL pipeline represented “an overinflated role in our political discourse.” Regrettably, the President has become part of this political inflation.

The environmentalists who opposed the XL pipeline never really made an effective case against it. For their real concern was always about Canada’s oil sand extraction of heavy crude oil. This extraction process damages the environment and produces a highly pollutant grade of oil. But eliminating a safer means of transporting Canadian crude has little effect on its production. TransCanada will produce its crude oil and find a way to export it to any market that will pay for it—by rail a/o pipeline, and then by ship. The market force here is simply demand and the opportunity for profit. Both developing and developed economies continue to increase demand for energy. Environmentalists are not in a position to stop capitalism; but they can advocate for alternative clean energy sources, promote development of those sources, educate the public about climate change, and spur demand for cleaner energy.

I understand the environmentalists’ tactic to thwart a company like TransCanada from reaching its intended market. But that tactic is not an effective strategy. For it encourages the opposition to change the debate to extraneous issues like jobs, regulations, gas prices, the demand for foreign imports, and the President’s politics. These issues garner headlines and spur the media megaphone, completely obliterating the underlying issue. The debate over the pipeline is really just a proxy debate that sidelines the real debate about climate change and the need to replace a carbon based energy platform. Let’s have that debate instead of the politics of diversion.

A Voter’s Dilemma

Leave a reply

The American media have begun the countdown to the 2016 Presidential Election. The major political parties are apoplectic about “stirring up the base” and “getting out the vote.” The demagoguery, the flag waving, and the wildly cheering crowds will gain momentum, reaching a feverish crescendo at the Party Conventions. There the baton will be passed to each Party’s nominee to carry that enthusiasm all the way to election night. There is no more anticipated or celebrated event than an American Presidential election. All of the speeches, the fundraising, the public debates, the folksy camaraderie, and relentless polling have only one goal: to win your vote. The voter’s dilemma, however, is more than determining who or what deserves his/her vote.

In an “absolute democracy,” every issue and every office would be determined by a plebiscite, i.e., a majority of legal citizens must vote on what and who will govern them. For example, in ancient Greece each citizen exercised the right of self-government by voting in the Athenian public forum. Although the Grecian model may have inspired democracy, it was rejected by our founding fathers. Our system of government, though instigated by the Declaration of Independence and defined by the Constitution, was voted into existence by representatives of the colonies in the Continental Congress. As one might expect, they chose a “representative democracy” with checks and balances built into an equal, but separate, tripartite system of government. That system was designed to steer America’s course in concert with the will of future generations and with the collaborative wisdom of elected officials toward a more perfect union, albeit free of any form of tyranny. America’s future would depend upon how Americans evolved this union. Whereas the Greeks had slaves and denied women full citizenry, Americans would eventually move beyond these limitations. To this day, we Americans continue to develop a more perfect union, inspired by these same founding documents. The realization of Lincoln’s phrase, “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” rests solely upon the voting authority of the people and the fair, honest, sensible custodians of our tripartite system of government. And those custodians are accountable to the electorate—with the exception of Supreme Court Justices who are accountable solely to lady justice and the Constitution. Though amendments to our Constitution are rare, we citizens regularly define the course of America through our representatives in Congress and the President. We cast our votes and trust our elected officials will represent our interest. This trust is critical in determining our vote. But it is also at the heart of the voter’s dilemma.

You may well question who you should trust when casting your vote. Do you vote for the candidates who support your priorities or at least most of them? Should you vote the “Party line” where you believe your priorities are generally advocated? Perhaps you are a single issue voter and will vote for any candidate that, for example, will build an unsurmountable wall across our border—or for any candidate that will keep immigrant families together and grant them a path to citizenship. However you choose to vote you know you must accept the will of the majority if we are to have a stable democracy. It is that acceptance that bodes a cautionary tale: you must not vote for any candidate incapable of representing and serving the general welfare even if you agree with him/her on a particular issue. Such a candidate seeks something other than the public service demanded by our system. Most likely, his/her goal is to win office for its own sake, not yours. To some degree, all candidates attempt to manipulate voters by advocating for issues they support. “Speaking the voters mind” is the job of a politician. But the politician who rides a single issue into office in order to cater to special interest or to reward large campaign donors does not serve the general public. He/she not only violates your trust, but undermines a representative democracy (reference “The Weirdness of American Policy”). In this instance, you may feel like your vote does not count. And that feeling is the voter’s dilemma most of us face.

It appears that 63% of the electorate agrees with this last sentence since they did not show up for the last Federal election. Currently, both political parties seem to be attracting the most electoral fervor around candidates who claim, on one side, that our political leaders are “stupid, bought and paid for” or, on the other side, are subservient to “the billionaire class.” There is more than a kernel of truth in this sad assessment. Campaign fundraising competes with the time our elected officials devote to serving the public interest; and well-paid lobbyists control much of the public agenda in Washington. On the other hand, there are well intentioned office holders who are truly dedicated to our welfare and America’s future. Unfortunately, their voices are often lost in the media blitz where only the most outlandish make the news. Our system of government is deteriorating because we are losing control of both the public forum and our electoral voice. Congress has been high-jacked by single-issue minorities, who garner the broadcast news megaphone with claims of injustice and alleged “unconstitutional” behavior of the majority. In some cases, they even quote the First and Second Amendments to suit their purpose without regard to legitimate Constitutional interpretation or Supreme Court rulings.

Congress also has fallen under the sway of the moneyed class a/o corporate America whose lobbyists now write much of the legislation that is allowed to reach the floor. Matters of general interest, such as immigration reform or background checks for gun purchases, are tabled and never appear in the Congressional record. Some of our elected officials actually believe they can hide from the electorate their true allegiance by not appearing in the voting record. These officials should be exposed by the fact-checking, truth-verifying members of the media. But, instead, their behavior has become the norm. Their game-playing mechanisms to hold onto power go almost unnoticed; and their distortion of the public agenda in favor of loud minorities or the financial elite has become “business as usual.” The irony is that Americans have already voted against these miscreants while still losing the public forum. The current majority party in Congress actually lost the popular vote. This irregularity owes to another form of game-playing called gerrymandering. Americans have already shown their preference for specific issues in the polls—some have even represented their issues at the very doorsteps of Congressional offices and in Congressional committee meetings. But their voices still go unheard on the floor of Congress. So what does it mean when neither the vote nor the voice of the American majority is heard by its elected representatives? What does it mean for the state of our democracy and the viability of our system of government?

My answer to that question is simple: our system, if not broken, is frayed. If the 2016 election is not a turning point for America, then when and how will we revive our democracy? If we feel our vote no longer counts, then we are doomed to live with the dysfunction we all see in Washington. Being so disillusioned is a lot like living in the dark and liking it. But only mushrooms flourish in the dark. Maybe this disillusionment comes from the fear that even greater voter turnout cannot fix what ails our system. That fear is based upon an irremediable cynicism and is another form of the voter’s dilemma.

Our popular vote today is heavily influenced by an easily distracted media, by a barrage of mind-numbing slogans, and by political pandering more than by reasoned debates and open dialogue on substantive issues. This negative influence is paid for by well-healed, self-interested agents and is promulgated by a portion of the broadcast media more invested in ratings and paying sponsors than in journalistic integrity. The common denominator here is money. My previous blogs on this subject (reference “American Revolution 2016” and “The Shining City on a Hill”) addressed one way for Americans to recapture control of the Washington agenda. I urged reform of our electoral process and public financing of Federal elections. So far only one candidate has proposed public financing of elections. Obviously, I would like to see more candidates join him in that proposal. My intent here is merely to promote more dialogue on this topic. Consider taking #the2016pledge. Perhaps we can begin to resolve the voter’s dilemma and make our votes truly count.

What Strategy?

Leave a reply

Many have criticized this Administration’s lack of an overall strategy in dealing with Ukraine, Iran, Syria, and Cuba. In general, this criticism focuses on what the President has not done. For example, he has failed to provide adequate military assistance to prospective allies in Ukraine or Syria. He has not committed enough American force to make Iraq’s fight with ISIL more successful. He has not completely eliminated the Iranian nuclear program. And he has not sufficiently punished Castro for the Cuban missile crisis and for making Cuba a communist state. By contrast, pundits and critics have pointed out how successful Vladimir Putin has proved to be in some of these same areas. His militaristic strategies seem to be more effective, though he hardly measures up to Stalin or Hitler. Putin seems content to limit his military ventures to extend his sphere of influence without actually conquering neighboring states. At this point, his military interventions appear successful: witness Georgia, Crimea, and now Ukraine. Recently he has moved to support Assad with Russian military personnel and bombardments from Russian planes and ships. Moreover, he plans on providing Iran with an air defense system. And his military intelligence is now “coordinating” with Baghdad. In Syria, in Iran, and in Iraq he is deliberately interfering or precluding what he imagines might be American interests or plans. His likely strategy is to bind these Shia led governments to Russia, extending his sphere of influence to the Persian Gulf as well as into Eastern Europe. So what is the American counter strategy?

The Administration did check Putin’s attempt to re-engage with Cuba. Shortly after his visit to Cuba, the State Department quietly began talking to Cuban officials. With the Pope’s help, that secret mission went public; and America now has diplomatic relations with Cuba and the prospect of ending its economic embargo. Putin has been checkmated from incursion into America’s sphere of influence. But an American counter strategy to Putin in his sphere of influence is really a question of will and confrontation avoidance. Our President has said he would not get into a proxy war in Syria, though I suspect many in Congress would urge him to do so. In fact, America is already in a proxy war there. He also said that the Russian military risks getting mired into a civil war if it targets the Free Syrian Army, though some in the Administration may welcome this drain on Russian resources. The recent Russian “diplomatic” move to inform Baghdad rather than the Pentagon about the commencement of its bombing campaign in Syria is certainly a snub; but it hardly diminishes Iraq’s dependence on and alliance with America. And Iran is really unaligned and remains a wildcard in the Middle East. Although on the same side as Russia in support of Assad, it has no more regard for Russia than for America. It will deal with both in support of its own interests, but will align with neither. It negotiated with America as the main architect of sanctions and with Russia as a potential supplier of armaments. However, it is not likely to forget that Russia was a party to the negotiations that dismembered its nuclear program and is also a competitor in supplying oil to Europe. Nevertheless, Putin seems intent on extending his sphere of influence by any means available to him. So is the Administration’s strategy to avoid confrontation in Russia’s corner of the world, effectively allowing Putin to run amuck until he sinks Russia into a quagmire of costly foreign interventions?

First, we need to be clear on what should be called a “strategy.” In this context, it has to be more than a one dimension plan to achieve a goal, like a politician’s soundbite: “arm the rebels”; “deploy two brigades to Northern Iraq”; “capture ISIL’s oil fields in Syria”; “bomb Iranian nuclear installations”; “deploy nuclear armed missiles in Eastern Europe”; “maintain military bases in Afghanistan and Iraq for the foreseeable future”; “insert NATO or American troops into western Ukraine”; and so on. The real world context demands a multifaceted strategy that deploys the economic, political, psychological and military resources of a group of nations in support of a desired end. The American led European coalition has already taken up the battle against Russian aggression on its eastern border, not only propagandizing the revived threat of the Russian bear, but also imposing economic sanctions and uninviting the Russians from previously attended diplomatic conferences. But no NATO or American military are deployed in Ukraine. Likewise, the Administration has formed a coalition of more than sixty nations, including the Arab gulf nations, to degrade and eventually defeat ISIL, though without engaging the forces of Russia’s ally, Assad. Both strategies, then, are more focused on restoring peace and stability to Ukraine, Iraq, and Syria than on effectively countering Russia or its proxies. Also, both strategies show restraint in deploying military force and/or in supplying advanced armaments. This restraint and the obvious reluctance to confront Russia are intertwined, for they explain the limited military options in the Administration’s overall strategy. America and its allies in their attempt to address unrest in Eastern Europe and the Middle East are running afoul of Russia’s strategy to amplify or extend its sphere of influence. The question remains how willing is the Administration to confront Russia within its sphere of influence—i.e., militarily.

Some decades ago, President Kennedy was willing to engage Russia in a nuclear war when it endangered America and trespassed into our sphere of influence. Of course, I am referencing the Cuban missile crisis. Later, during Johnson’s Presidency, the foreign ministers of both Russia and America discussed possible tradeoffs within their respective spheres of influence. At the time, America was supporting the Republic of Vietnam against Communist aggression while Russia was supporting Communist North Korea in its continuing battle with its democratic neighbor to the south. In both Cuba and this later instance, the two super powers confronted each other through proxy nations, like pieces on a chessboard. (“I’ll trade my bishop for your rook.”) Although the Soviet Union no longer exists, its Russian remnant is still a nuclear armed nation under Putin, a man dedicated to restoring Russian influence, if not empire. His view of the world seems to be an anachronism of that earlier period, the Cold War. He has tried to align with Venezuela and Cuba in the Americas, but has been thwarted. As a result, he has to play with the pieces within his sphere of influence and counter an American response wherever he can. I think his overall strategy is obvious. But his tactics are opportunistic and, therefore, hard to predict. For example, he quickly volunteered to promote the divestment of Syrian chemical weapons in order to preempt President Obama’s eminent military intervention. He used the coup d’état in Kiev to intervene militarily in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Recently, when Assad’s command was reduced to less than one third of his country, he propped up Assad with Russian forces under the guise of joining allied forces against ISIL. Perhaps there is no effective strategy to stop Putin’s brand of opportunism except military confrontation. The West, under American leadership, is instead focused on the political restoration of the peoples of Ukraine, Syria, and Iraq, while eliminating the destabilizing effect of a nuclear armed Iran. Without the will to confront Russia’s military, how can the West effectively stop Putin’s expansionism or even play in his game.

When I served in Vietnam, I quickly learned how to avoid being stung by a scorpion. If you try to stomp the bugger, he’ll avoid your foot or die trying. In either case, you will be stung. But if you throw a cloth or paper over its head, it will immediately sting itself and die. Russia is like that scorpion. Under Putin’s leadership, it appears already blind to the possibility of overextending Russian resources and destabilizing the Russian economy. Putin cannot foresee and certainly cannot manage the chaos he has stirred either in Ukraine or now in Syria. Meanwhile, much like the weapons race during the Cold War, Putin is leading Russia into potential collapse. The risks he took in Crimea were minimal compared to what followed in eastern Ukraine. The risks he is taking in Syria are of an even greater magnitude for he will put Russian soldiers in the crosshairs of a civil war. He has so far proven right in his estimate that the West—specifically, America—does not have the will to fight Russia militarily outside NATO’s borders in Eastern Europe or in Syria. But his opportunism will bankrupt Russia and further isolate it as a pariah among the nations of the world. The best strategy when facing a scorpion is to keep your distance, blind it—or in Putin’s case, step aside the blind course he has chosen—and let it kill itself.

There is a caveat to what I have just written: nobody really knows what strategies are being undertaken, least of all me. For example, the reference I just made to discussions between foreign ministers of Russia and America was revealed to me in a memo from Eugene Rostow to President Johnson. That memo was declassified four decades after it was written. In the same batch of declassified material from that period was the revelation President Johnson had a back channel of communication with Ho Chi Minh many years before the Paris peace talks were initiated. I became aware of these facts as a result of the research I did for my first novel, “A Culpable Innocence.” My point here is that we have no way of knowing whether the Administration has had back channel communications with Assad or what happened in the private talks between Presidents Obama and Putin at the UN. Was their handshake a public gesture for press consumption or a sign of their agreement on some matter of policy? Maybe four decades from now we’ll know the truth.

To conclude: Putin is already blinded by his ambitions. The chaos he has stirred in Ukraine and Syria is more than he can shape. Though the Administration’s goals may not change, strategies will. What final strategy will win the day is a question still begging an answer.

Who Am I to Judge?

Leave a reply

When the Pope was asked to comment on the status of gays in the Catholic Church, his response was simply “who am I to judge.” Remarkable!

At this writing Pope Francis’ plane is soaring over the Atlantic as he returns to the Vatican after an historic trip to Cuba and the United States. For the past six days, Americans have witnessed something unprecedented. You might think I am referring to the full dress “head of state” honors shown the Pontiff at the White House. Or perhaps you are amazed—maybe even stunned—by the sight of a Catholic Pope addressing Congress. These events plus the hordes of admirers that lined his motorcades and attended the various ceremonials at Saint Patrick’s Cathedral, 9/11 ground zero, and Philadelphia’s Independence Square are all unprecedented. But what I find especially significant is the message he exudes in his persona and its timeliness.

When the leader of 1.4 billion Catholics says, “Who am I to judge,” he is not necessarily agreeing with your premise. He is simply not judging it. Would the so-called Caliphate of ISIL be capable of disagreeing without judgment? Would the Ayatollah? More than a few of us would have problems not judging those with whom we strongly disagree. This type of intolerance, however, is inconsistent with a democracy—though we see it regularly displayed in Congress and in primary debates. The Pontiff obviously stands for orthodoxy in the Catholic Church. And yet he can withhold judgment and respect the conscience of another whose lifestyle he might not condone. What he affirms is not the lifestyle, but the person. He is validating human beings over orthodoxy. Intolerance by its nature precludes compassion. Pope Francis, then, recognizes what is more important in both human relationships and in governance. His pastoral mission–his compassion–is for the world, not just for Catholics, because he understands what has roiled the Middle East and Central Africa, washed up refugees on the shores of Europe, terrorized the West, and even wrought uncompromising polarization in our Congress. The face of orthodoxy—religious or political—has once again raised its gargantuan head and threatens to blot out the visage of our common humanity.

There is still a fundamental difference between America and the Vatican. It is important to understand that the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are not products of any specific religious institution. Although many of our founding fathers were religious, they created an America where all religions might be practiced, but only within the limits of the law. In other words, America is basically a secular state governed by the rule of law. Its founding principles were sourced from natural law and the thinkers of the Enlightenment. It should be noted that the first pilgrims to come to our shores were escaping religious prosecution from the state. The New World effectively broke with the European tradition of conflicting religious ideologies that spurred so much violence including the Papacy’s persecution of the French Huguenots and the Inquisition. The course America has set for itself not only favors the coexistence of diverse religious practice, but also the development of a collective conscience. Consider how our country has changed in regards to slavery, women’s rights, racial injustice, and gender discrimination. No church dictated these changes, although some of them—notably, not all—were supported by various religious institutions. The American Revolution is, as John Adams so eloquently stated, an experiment. I see that “experiment” as an ongoing self-examination of our collective conscience.

Currently, Americans seem to be crystallizing their assessment on the effects of income inequality, mass incarceration and unequal law enforcement. Perhaps Americans will eventually reach some consensus on the Pope’s concerns about abortion and capital punishment. He has quietly supported the right to life position of a vocal minority in America, but noticeably without encouraging the crazies who bomb clinics and threaten bodily harm or even death to abortion practitioners. His position on capital punishment on the other hand already has a large constituency, reflecting a growing consensus among Americans. I believe there are only six southern states that have executed convicts so far this year. Nationwide there have been only 22 executions performed to date as compared with the 98 executions performed in 1998. But I think it would be wrong to use the Pope’s moral guidance as a partisan political justification for the so-called conservative or liberal positions on these matters. We Americans have to find common ground amongst ourselves first before reaching a consensus that mirrors our collective conscience. We develop that consensus over time after all conflicting considerations have been weighed. What we have learned from this Pontiff is that consensus cannot be reached without mutual respect and compassion. His message is similar to Jesus’ when confronted with the stoning of an adulteress. Without condoning adultery, he said, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.” He might have said, “Who am I to judge?”