TFP Column: Participation Foreign Policy

One of the things that has always been the most valuable about sports for young people are the lessons they learn in life that have nothing to do with the sports themselves. The price involved with sacrificing individual effort to contribute to a team as one learns to compete as a part of one, the expense incurred individually and together for violating the rules of the game, the cost and reward of competing honorably, of being good losers and, even more important, of comporting oneself as even better winners are all lessons that I like many learned on the sporting fields (and the ice rinks). Looking back, they proved themselves far more significant than the scores of the games, any personal ability garnered (or lack thereof) or any awards won (or lost).

Of course, we wouldn’t know much about such things these days. Youth baseball for example, is a game now played first without a pitcher so that everyone can know what it means to get a hit — not that this is something which should normally matter because no one’s allowed to keep score when hits and runs occur anyway. And if some politically incorrect fool should dare to do so by accident, “mercy rules” will no doubt bring such an atrocity to a speedy end so that the self-esteem of the losers won’t be damaged too terribly in the process of defeat that never really happened.

Such nonsense was painful enough to watch when your children are involved and even more horrible to talk about in terms of the valuable ideals being forever lost. It’s absolutely horrifying however to see this philosophy come to a sort of feckless fruition by watching our nation’s leaders apparently using the same rules when playing at foreign policy around the world.

Having fallen prey to a form of foreign policy participation in which your goal is “not to do anything dumb,” or “to do as little damage as possible,” our current commander-in-chief seems unable to grasp that the rest of the world cares far more about the scores of such trials and more than content to tally the score of this particular contest with the severed heads of our players if available, those of nearby fans if not.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m as “war weary” as the next citizen, having watched Democrat and Republican administrations alike fail at nation-building around the world for far longer than Hasbro had the game “Risk” for sale (originally released in 1957 under the apt name “The Conquest of the World” by the way). Ever able to win the wars, our team has consistently (one might even say unflaggingly) proven itself all but incompetent in its ability to afterward “win the peace.”

Our “old-school” opponents, however — nations not yet fallen on the depredations of T-ball and certainly not that of the mercy rule — still prefer to play a game where the rules say that leaders still lead (and not from behind) and any game worth playing is worth winning (and not just strategically exiting the field of play when it seems convenient). Add in that many of those teams are inspired by a form of religious zealotry that not only causes them to still believe that God (Allah if you’re being specific) is not only on their side, but is personally inspiring them to greater sacrifice through after-life bonuses and perhaps you can begin to see how serious and dangerous today’s field of play has now become.

Not so dangerous however, as the group continuing to call the plays on our side of the field. Our leaders, graduates of years sensitivity training and self-esteem nurturing, apparently seem satisfied with having shown up on the world stage for a bit of participation, but only as long as such efforts have no long-term effects on the only real game that counts to them — winning elections.
As Tom Hanks famously said in “A League of Their Own”: “There’s no crying in baseball.” Neither apparently, are there (or should there be) participation trophies in foreign policy. The lines on the world map may, for the most part, be arbitrarily and artificially drawn from Ukraine to Iraq, and from Syria to Iran, but the blood being shed and the thousands lives being lost in the current game of foreign policy being played there is proving neither arbitrary nor artificial. 

These Boots Are Made For Walking ...

It's been a week where an inadvertent remark by Secretary of State John Kerry has done more for Middle East peace than his predecessor's entire tenure and Vladimir Putin is as busy as President Obama in making the case to the American people for how stability in the Syria is to be reached.

Russia and the US have apparently negotiated an agreement about dismantling the chemical weapons in Syria.  With its agreement, Syria will now become a signatory of UN prohibitions against using weapons that it never admitted that it had, and surrender them without actually admitting that it used them on its own citizens.  In return, President Obama will quietly withdraw a request for permission that he was never going to get from Congress for a response to their use; which no one wanted to look too closely at, lest they discover that some of them had come across the border from Iraq during one of the previous Administration's foreign policy escapades and have to admit that they were there in the first place.  

According to statements being released by press secretaries and State Department representatives, no one need now fear that 'boots on the ground' will be required as a follow up to a never approved missile attack that was apparently designed to accomplish nothing other than blowing up $350 million of ordinance without making a regime change or inflicting a civilian casualty.  What a relief!  (What a load of crap!)

Wait a minute!  These are CHEMICAL WEAPONS whose components can only be destroyed properly by those with expert knowledge of such weaponry under the most exacting of conditions in specialized facilities through the use of tremendous heat.  Without delving too deeply into how the United States gained the singular expertise required for the destruction of such materials and the demolition of the sites that create them, I would suggest that anyone who believes that those with such proficiency are not in uniform may already be committing significant abuse where modern chemistry is concerned. 

As for their safe disposal ...  The last time I looked, the entire nation of Syria was a war zone occupied by multiple factions with no love for each other, let alone President Assad and his government.  (As for the US and its on again, off again support of regime change ... not so much.)  Now regardless of whether the agreeing parties yesterday also reached peace amongst the disparate factions involved with this conflict (they haven't) or is planning on imposing peace on the region by some means (no one's said so), someone's going to have to provide security, transport, and disposal of these materials while the fighting is still going on.  (Lest heaven forbid, they should fall into the wrong hands.)   

Regardless of what anyone in the Administration, Congress, or the Press is peddling these days; if this task is to be accomplished, a great number of US personnel are going to have to place themselves in harms way as part of this process.  Construction engineers are going to have to build a disposal facility in that part of the world.  (We probably have or had one in neighboring Iraq, but that nation's gone to hell under recent foreign policy and those facilities may no longer be operable.)  Security and transport will need to be provided from wherever the stockpiles have been most recently relocated (to protect them from our Tomahawk cruise missiles) to wherever the disposal and remission sites end up.  Ground forces will necessarily make up some part of that security if for no other reason than to protect convoys from IED's (improvised explosive devices) and suicide bombers; along with their requisite supply and logistics services.  Air cover will likewise need to be provided as part of that security, which because of the location means carrier deployment, use of Saudi air bases, or both.  Deployment of carriers will mean the further staging of a fleet of ships for support, logistics, and fleet protection.

Based on current intelligence estimates of the size of stockpiles in Syria and even assuming that the warring parties currently occupying the space allow us to proceed, it's likely that undertaking such an operation will require 'boots on the ground' for the rest of the decade at a minimum.  Up until now, the promise against such a condition is the only thing achieving bi-partisan support.  Strange that in the rush to celebrate this agreement, no one is talking about these unintended consequences of their success. 

It was Lee Hazlewood that wrote "These Boots Are Made For Walking"; that Nancy Sinatra (Frank's daughter) made famous in back in 1966.  It won't be go-go boots on the beach that we'll be talking about in 2013 and beyond however, but combat boots once again deployed to march the sand in Middle Eastern deployment. 

Update:
An earlier version of this was picked up and reprinted on the website of the

  

We're Hunting 'Yeah Buts'

Two years and 110,000 after it started, the President of the United States wants to do something about the Syrian Civil War. He's even taken his case for action to Congress for approval (yeah but he said he may do it anyway even if they disapprove). Sure, what we're planning is being leaked by an Administration that may be more porous than Sponge Bob Square Pants. Yeah but what we hope to gain from this dubious effort is a mystery greater than that of the Sphinx. 

This unfortunately termed 'shot across their bows' strategy has us with a number of US Navy vessels parked off the coat of Syria, all apparently locked and loaded with cruise missiles that the President would like shoot. (Who knew nations had bows.) This will show its President Bashar el-Assad that he can't use chemical weapons against his own people in the civil war engulfing his country that could decide his continued rule, if not his continued existence.

Now for those who've already forgotten, Congress was already looking at a busy schedule when it got back from vacation this week. The nation is about to max out its credit limit at $16.7 trillion and Congress has little time before we allegedly reach default. Yeah but the President wants his Syria resolution dealt with immediately even if we don't know if we can borrow the money to pay for it.

Congress also urgently needs to pass a 2014 budget, since it failed to do so in the previous eleven months. Yeah but one of the biggest complaints we've heard about budgets in the past is how we've spent too much on Middle Eastern wars. Yeah but all the President's talking about is a very limited action involved with firing some cruise missiles to re-establish ourselves as the one and only super power, so how much could that cost?

The Navy lists the Raytheon Tomahawk Block IV cruise missile at roughly $569,000 per unit (yeah but that's in 1999 dollars). A 2011 Huffington Post article cites information from a Navy spokesman that today's cost is actually closer to $1.41 million per missile. That means that this 'bow shot', while undoubtedly creating a number of Syrian 'shovel-ready projects', could cost us between $113 and $280 million dollars.

So you'd think with the kinds of cost involved, targets would be chosen with some guaranteed 'bang for your buck' (pun intended). Yeah but not where the stockpiles of chemical weapons are, since Syria's moving them around and we aren't really sure of where they are.  Besides, striking them might release those chemicals, killing even more innocent people. Not at Syria's missile launchers, warplanes and airports either, since we're not sure about where the first two are are, and cruise missiles aren't good for taking out moving targets or runways. Not at any of his command and control bunkers either, since as bad as cruise missiles are on airport runways, they're worse at bunker busting. Not even at Assad himself, since we're not looking for regime change, something that might provoke consequences that our strategy is not prepared to deal with.

Strangely in this case, the idea of going after Syria in the first place seemed more the idea of the British and French, with the US there to 'lead from behind'; and PM David Cameron took project approval to the British Parliament. Yeah but he after he talked President Obama into stepping forward, Parliament voted it down so the British are now out. Yeah but never fear, the French are still on our side (at least until the next opportunity to surrender occurs). Normally the US waits to build a coalition of NATO forces (yeah but nobody in NATO wants any part of this one), or a world-wide coalition of UN members (yeah but no UN members seem to want sign up).

So today Congress is back at work in Washington; but they're not likely to take up the hearings about the NSA, IRS, or Benghazi that they said were urgent when they left. Others may want to talk about the Budget or the Debt Ceiling lest financial doom occur. Yeah but the President said he really needs a vote on his Syrian resolution this week.  After all, Assad is a bad guy and though this war has been going on for two years it's probably past time we got him to leave (yeah but most of his opposition aren't much better and some are far worse). 

Truthfully, the President's Syrian Charade seems more like something from a 'Looney Tunes' cartoon, and as the President speaks to the American people and to Congress, my guess is that some of those in the White House old enough to remember the Elmer Fudd character can't help but paraphrase the famous quote of its shotgun-toting (that's for you Joe Biden) comic straight man:

"Shhh. Be vewy vewy quiet, I'm hunting yeah buts."

The Magical Misdirection Tour

There are a lot of people worried about whether we're going to be shooting off a few fireworks in Syria this weekend to celebrate the Labor Day Weekend.  Quite frankly, I am too; but probably not as much as most.  There's been enough fireworks in the Middle East over the last couple of years (actually the last couple thousand years, but whose counting), and in spite of the recent cost in lives and treasure for 'Arabian Adventures', things don't really appear to be getting any better there.  After all, this part of the world is very hot and has too little water (two things which tend to make people cranky), and it seems unlikely that either will change.  So let's move on ....

Wait, that's it.  You're willing to brush off everything going on in Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan with no more than a short paragraph!

Yep ...

You see, we are living during the 'Magical Misdirection Tour', and it's time we stopped being taken in by the latest bit of political sleight of hand we're witnessing.  Congress is about to come back from their summer vacation to face once more a dismal and epic failure to pass even a single part of next year's fiscal budget.  Instead of apologizing for the failure to do their job however, what we'll hear instead is a lot of high minded discussion (see bloviating) about the terror or necessity of 'shutting down government' in order to facilitate future partisan point-scoring in the year leading up to a mid-term election.

If we fail to applaud to this bit of played out pretense, the second act of the looming debt ceiling awaits just beyond.  Yes, the same legislative body that brought you the 'House Banking Scandal of 1992' (Remember.  This was where members of the House were allowed to overdraw their personal checking accounts without penalty) will once again need to take up the unfortunate situation that borrowing on the national account is about to exceed its limit.  Recognizing the dire 'damsel on the train tracks' nature of this situation and the need to resolve it before the nation supposedly defaults on its debt, both major political parties will seek to ... make it about re-election next year.

The President meanwhile, had been focusing his attention on the cost of a higher education and the burden of borrowing money to finance it.  Of course the fact that such costs have gone up by over 250 percent in the last thirty years has nothing to do with the government providing low interest, unsecured loans to pay for it, regardless of whether the degree obtained in the process would provide an income which allows the student to pay the loan back.  Instead the President would like the government to 'evaluate' schools, and find forgiveness for loans taken out by students who go to work for non-profit organizations or the government itself. (There's a level of hypocrisy here that needs to be delved into, but not today.)

Oh and let's not forget that the Administration once again has its laser-like attention focused on jobs in this country.  (How many times have we heard this one before?)  Apparently, being the President whose biggest effect on employment thus far has been to turn more full time employment into part time employment through the Affordable Healthcare Act is not enough.  The Commander-in-Chief has yet to make any concrete proposals on how to get good, high paying jobs back into this stagnant economy, but perhaps its not too late to jump on board the $15.00 per hour for fast food workers movement.  Force them to unionize like federal workers and this could have the double benefit of paying back supporting unions by way of dues.

So let's assess where we are.  We're told that the growth in the national debt is slowing in one hand, but we have to raise the debt ceiling in the other.  We're told that we can trust the government to watch over us when the NSA is spying on some of us and the IRS is conspiring against others. We're told that we need to re-elect experienced politicians to lead in Washington when those in place for over 20 years cannot perform even the most basic functions of getting an annual budget passed or produce readable legislation.  Suddenly however, just when the anger really starts to get going over all the crap being shoveled on us in this country by our nation's capital the most important thing in the world is suddenly (wait for it) ... 

SYRIA!

Wait.  Hasn't this civil war has been going on for over a year?  So why does jumping into now sound like a good idea?  Does it make any real difference to a Syrian population that the rest of the world has mostly abandoned whether the lives of the over 100,000 already killed were ended by bombs, bullets, or poison gas?  Why is this alleged gas attack different from the previous one that the President said would be the 'red line', but wasn't?  Wouldn't shooting a few cruise missiles, dropping some bombs from air strikes, or making some drone attacks likely kill even more and cause even more destruction?  Then again ...


Could all of this political theater be little more than a distraction from the phony scandals in Washington?  Could their timing be any more perfect for this Administration?  Is there a better bit of misdirection than showing pictures of poisoned women and kids that didn't matter a couple of weeks ago and haven't mattered for the last couple years (not to mention parking some warships in the Eastern Mediterranean) to keep us from noticing the insidious poison of the ruling elite infecting this country from Washington DC?

Well played Federal Government.  The media now speaks of nothing but about our strategy (such as it is) for dealing with Syria, so the American public will no doubt fall once more for the charlatan's tricks.  Fast and Furious?  Benghazi? The IRS and the NSA? The Debt Ceiling and the Budget?  Immigration or Tax reform, who cares?  The list goes on and on, but they're all old news now that we've got some fresh meat to feed the public.  What was crucial to this nation's survival just days ago is about to become little more than the footnote to a growing list of things we've lost sight of.  Welcome to the continuation of the Magical Misdirection Tour of 2013. Enjoy the show.