This is How Wars Start

As you read this computer screen, the Russian Air Force is bombing Syria. Sixty strikes on 50 targets in the last 3 days. MiGs are hitting ISIS camps; they are also attacking “moderate” rebels. The net effect is the same. Whether Russian bombs level ISIS camps or moderate camps, opponents of Syria’s President Assad die. Putin has sent his Air Force to save Assad.

Don’t they teach history in Moscow? Just like post-WW1 Germany, Post-Cold War Russia is a great power who just lost a war, elected a strongman, and backs another strongman with airpower in a civil war. Just as Hitler’s air force backed Franco, Putin’s air force is backing Assad. Think of Putin’s Russia as Hitler’s Prussia, 78 years on. Putin is our generation’s Hitler (minus the pogroms). History repeats itself.

By loosing Russian airpower against moderate Syrian rebels, Putin is playing with fire.

The United States wants to get rid of Assad. Our means are the moderate Syrian rebels. They are America’s ally in this fight. At some point the US Air Force might rise to protect our ally from Russian air attack. In other words, dogfights over Damascus; MiGs versus F-22s.

America has the option of doing nothing. We could just stand by when MiGs bomb Syrian rebels. But that would mean backing down to Putin’s Russia.

This is how wars start. To say we are in a dangerous situation is an understatement.

In the early 20^th Century, leaders constantly feared that “some damn foolish thing in the Balkans” would start the next war. That’s exactly what ignited World War I. In our time, we have lived with the fear that the Mideast will spark the next war. Will history repeat itself? It usually does.

Before we demonize Putin for putting us in this dilemma, consider for a moment that Putin may be right.

Syrian refugees are swarming into Europe. They are driven by unlivable turmoil in Syria -- the kind that only a strongman can put down. Assad is no worse than any other Syrian strongman. He’s far better than ISIS, which continues to grow. Refugees lived under Assad before; they’ll do it again. It is painful to admit, but only a strongman can control the thugs of Syria.

Russian airstrikes reveal a strategy that goes far beyond "who rules Syria." The world is full of artificial “nations” like Syria. Russian airstrikes against all rebels reveal Putin’s theory of democratic failure. Democracies have failed to export democracy. From Cairo to Kabul, democracy has only led to instability -- which has led to terrorism and flight.  Putin is just among the few world leaders who realize that “Imposed Democracy” has failed. Nations will only move from totalitarianism to democracy on their internal terms and schedules.

Xi’s China and increasing numbers of Europeans agree with Putin’s actions. After years of turmoil to export Democracy, people yearn for peace. They want stability – and will forego the growth of democracy to get it.

The Developed World wants quiet borders and a lid on terrorism. The only proven path to that end is uncomfortable: we must back lots of strongmen in the Undeveloped World. Only strongmen will prevent chaos.

This strategy is familiar to Americans. During the Cold War, the United States backed strongmen around the world. Syngman Rhee in South Korea, Pinochet in Chili, Noriega in Panama, the Shah in Iran, etc. The Soviet threat was so great that America backed anti-communist dictators of whatever stripe.

Fast-forward to today. Was the threat to American sovereignty greater during the Cold War than it is now? If the measure is casualties, the threat is greater today. If the US was justified in bedding strongmen during the Cold War, are we not justified in backing strongmen today?

From this perspective, Putin’s airstrikes make sense. Before we instinctively send our jets to stop Putin, we should step back and understand our own goals.

Give Thanks to Kerry and Obama

The Iran Nuclear Agreement is a historic victory for American foreign policy, for 2 reasons:

1. It is extraordinarily hard, if not impossible, for the United States to absolutely prevent a nation from building a nuclear bomb.

•          2006. President George W. Bush was unable to stop North Korea.
•          1998. President Bill Clinton was unable to stop Pakistan.
•          1994. President Richard Nixon was unable to stop India.
•          1964. President Lyndon Johnson was unable to stop China.

The only iron-clad path to prevention is invasion, a path which no American president – regardless of party – has ever taken. Today, nothing has changed. America has neither the stomach nor the imperative to reverse this policy and invade Iran, a nation with 3 times the population and size of Iraq. 

Thus, the next most powerful option in our arsenal is sanctions. However, sanctions are less definitive and come with a shelf-life. Sanctions historically leak and wither over time. 

2. After our unnecessary invasion of Iraq, America’s enemies hated us and our allies distrusted us. However, under Obama’s leadership, executed by secretaries Clinton and Kerry, the United States built a global web of sanctions that coerced Iran to the bargaining table. Because unilateral sanctions don’t work (e.g., Cuban cigars are available in Duty Free shops from Canada to Kenya), it was absolutely mandatory that the United States gain the support of China, Russia, the EU and others, all with differing trade, social and economic agendas, to join and sustain crippling sanctions against Iran.

With invasion impractical and indefinite sanctions unsustainable, and with American leadership in the global toilet, Obama and Kerry produced a deal that cripples Iran’s nuclear ambitions for the foreseeable future while maintaining an international sanctions regime against Iran. 

By any measure this was brilliant statesmanship. Only the most partisan of politicians can fail to praise its authors. 

Understanding Iran

In Iran, the average plumber, shopkeeper, electrician, teacher, truck driver, nurse – distrusts America. “Hate” may be an accurate word for some Iranians, but distrust/dislike/disrespect captures majority sentiment. Why is this? Why do 80 million people in one of the world’s most ancient cultures consider America an enemy? Are they all simultaneously crazy? Do they not know how wonderful America is, the purity of our intentions, and the nobility of our policies?

Evidently not, because the following facts are well known to every Iranian:

1.      In 1951, Mohammad Mosaddegh became the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran. Despite popular support, he was overthrown in a 1953 military coup created and funded by the American government.

2.      We then helped Shah Reza Pahlavi impose imperial power. The CIA organized the Shah’s secret police; for a quarter century, SAVAK brutally enforced one-man rule in Iran.

3.      When the Iranian people finally overthrew the Shah in 1979, he fled to the United States. We refused Iranian demands for extradition. In the immediate turmoil of revolution, extremists took control of the US Embassy. Iranians consider the takeover an “unfortunate mistake” (no one was killed). Thirty-six years later, Americans still deem it an “unforgivable crime.”

4.      When Iraq started a war with Iran in 1980, the United States backed Iraq with arms and intelligence, even after Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iran. Over 1 million Iranians died in the Iran-Iraq war.

5.      In 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 in international airspace. 290 civilians died. We never apologized for the shoot-down, only expressing “deep regret” and paying $62 million in compensation.

6.      When the United States invaded Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003), Iran found itself sandwiched between two American armies on its eastern and western borders, with American drones and satellites regularly overflying Iran.

Yes, there is an American side to each of these facts. Yes, Iranian leaders regularly bombard America with verbal insults and foolish threats. Yes, Iranians (private and governmental) fund terror and instability. However, as we judge Secretary of State John Kerry’s nuclear negotiations with Iran (and the international community), we must recognize that understandable distrust is imprinted in the DNA of both sides.

No War with ISIL

Militaries fight wars. Only nations can win wars. In Kosovo, Vietnam, Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan, the combination of force, diplomacy, social commitment, knowledge and wealth defined and decided victory and defeat. Military force may decide a single battle, but never a war.  

Consider this telling exchange between two combat veterans after the Vietnam War. "You know, you never beat us on the battlefield," said the American officer. "That may be so,” responded the North Vietnamese officer, “but it is also irrelevant."

In Vietnam, America had overwhelming superiority in wealth and military might. However, Hanoi had superior: 1) knowledge (often courtesy of our South Vietnamese “allies”); 2) world opinion (China and Russia were rivers of supply); and, 3) internal commitment to victory – regardless of cost. As a result, America – not just our military – lost its first war.

Go even further back in history – to the American Civil War. The North had overwhelming advantages in wealth and military might. That may not have sufficed if President Lincoln had not: 1) used diplomacy to isolate the South from foreign assistance (e.g., Britain stayed neutral); and, 2) firmed Northern resolve through the Emancipation Proclamation. After the first two years of war, both sides had equal knowledge of the other. All five elements produced victory.

In Kosovo, NATO (led by America): 1) isolated Belgrade from foreign support; 2) targeted the wealth of oligarchs propping up Milosevic’s regime; 3) knew more about Serbia’s fielded forces than Serbia’s generals; 4) attacked the teeth of Serbian defenses without suffering a single casualty; and; 5) maintained solid popular support across America and the world. Again, all five elements of power produced victory.

Fast forward to today. We hear calls to declare war on ISIL (Islamic State in the Levant). These calls emphasize America’s huge advantages in wealth and military force. But what about diplomacy, social commitment, and knowledge? Is the world, or even the region behind us? Are Americans as dedicated to victory as ISIL’s fighters? Do we know more about ISIL than they know of us?

The answers to these basic questions are clearly NO. After our unjustified invasion of Iraq, America is hated across the Arab world. Shopkeepers, plumbers, mechanics, teachers – everyday, working people – distrust everything we say and do. Since “the friend of your enemy is your enemy,” anyone who sides with America comes under equal suspicion. We can undermine ISIL’s popular support by revealing its atrocities, but until and unless these revelations shift popular revulsion from America to ISIL, nations and groups across the region and the world will help ISIL in any war with America.

As for social commitment, ISIL’s followers equate defeat with death. Americans equate defeat with embarrassment. Nor do Americans know more about the enemy than they know of us. In fact, ISIL understands ground truth far more than we will ever know.

Despite advantages in force and wealth, America is handicapped in any war with ISIL by severe disadvantages in commitment, knowledge and regional support. History shows that victory in such circumstances is unlikely.

All Americans are Capitalists

How many Communists in your neighborhood? Any? How about Fascists? Feudalists? Mercantilists? Socialists?  Darn few. Maybe 10%. Combined. Tops.

The truth is, almost all Americans are capitalists. We vary by degrees within capitalism, but Americans are capitalists at our core.

Some Americans tend towards laissez-faire capitalism. This is the Chicago school, voiced by Nobel-laureate Milton Friedman. They believe that the lowest possible taxes and regulation generates the greatest national wealth. Despite all its flaws, Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” of the marketplace will inevitably produce the greatest social benefits. After all, free markets, not government, generate jobs – and good jobs are the best social program.

Other Americans tend towards democratic capitalism. This is the Keynesian school, voiced by Nobel-laureate Paul Krugman. They believe corporations will inevitably trash and trample the environment and individual workers unless constrained by government. America’s progressive stability in the 20^th Century allowed capitalism to flourish. By putting a “governor” on capitalism’s extremes, a democracy can create social growth beyond what unconstrained markets have historically produced.

Today’s Republicans and Democrats understand that America’s citizens are ultimately responsible for America’s economic growth. Both are capitalists. They vary only by degree and weight. Each wants economic growth. Republicans believe economic growth comes when employERS operate with few if any constraints. Democrats believe economic growth occurs when employEES benefit. Neither position is absolutely wrong or right. Reasonable people have, can and will debate this difference. It is as ancient as Hamilton versus Jefferson and as modern as Bush versus Clinton.

Americans share the same goal: economic prosperity. We embrace the same economic theory: capitalism. We differ only in approach: do the interests of the employer or the employee ultimately come first? This remains America’s political debate and divide.

Self-Defeating Violence

Half a century ago, the Civil Rights movement made great strides through non-violent protest. Led by Martin Luther King, non-violent marchers validated their plight and protest through dignified acceptance of police brutality. Blacks were the victims; whites the perpetrators. Obvious victims of injustice in the streets, black marchers gained white support for removing injustice in law. When white Americans saw peaceful blacks being beaten and trampled by the likes of Bull Connor in Birmingham and Jim Clark in Selma, whites were forced to reexamine their prejudices and laws. An entire generation, led by Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey did just that.

However, when black Americans turned to violence to accelerate change, they ended the movement. In the midst of riots in Detroit, Watts, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cleveland, Chicago and Washington DC, white America stared at their black & white TV sets and saw blacks as the perpetrators of violence. Although King argued that “riots are self-defeating and socially destructive,” he was ignored by the militants. Sympathy for civil rights evaporated.

Fast-forward to Ferguson, Missouri. Regardless of the social ills revealed by the Michael Brown case, the violence that followed will slow-down change. When the majority of Americans see indiscriminate violence and destruction in high-definition on their LED screens, the apologists of violence become invisible. American voters are not social scientists. They believe what they see and what people with credibility tell them. Had only peaceful protests followed, the leaders of those protests would have credibility; they would have been heard. Now, with burning buildings as backdrops, advocates for change can shout with rage and spew reams of data -- the average American will not hear.

People who think violence accelerates change need to think again. When the goal is dialogue, violence is an inhibitor. Ferguson may be a metaphor for multiple problems, but its turn to street violence is self-defeating.  

Zero-Sum Government

Washington politics are a zero sum game. When one branch gains power, others lose. For example, in the middle of the last century, Congress proved itself unable to deal with civil rights. The Supreme Court eventually stepped in. Congressmen howled about “judicial overreach and activism;” to no avail. With decisions on one-man-one-vote, abortion, equal access to public facilities and right to counsel, the Supreme Court gained power at Congress’ expense.

In our own era, Americans have witnessed a dysfunctional immigration system for decades. Self-weakened through filibustered gridlock, Congress did nothing. It was inevitable that one or both of the other branches of government would eventually move into the vacuum.

Far from castigating President Obama for making immigration law through executive action, Congress has only itself to blame. Under our system of zero-sum government, when one branch fails the others will step up. Further inaction due to Republican-led gridlock will inevitably weaken Congress while strengthening the President.

 

Such strengthening could, of course, get out of hand. For this reason alone, Congress must reject its zealots and return to producing compromise solutions to vexing national problems. Among the problems on Congress' plate are unequal tax treatment, political influence spending, and gerrymandering, among others. If Congress fails to act, more Executive Orders and Supreme Court decisions will fill the void.