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

  

Middle East Bully

Iraq seems to be settling back into uncomfortable, but well-recognized chaos and conflict.  Afghanistan too is reverting to the sectarian internal strife that it's known for far too long.  The situation with Syria's strong man continues to deteriorate, with calls going out for potential outside intervention; and Iran's continuing nuclear program's development bring more and more cries for something to be done by someone.  There's no doubt that someone must step up and stop the bullying being perpetrated on the nations of this region.

Of course we know what our government would like to do, and what it's done for many years; ignore thousands of years of history and continue to meddle in what's been a war zone since long before BC became AD.  Let's face it, countries in the Middle East have hated parts of themselves, most of their neighbors, and almost all outsiders for thousands of years; and probably before they were called Mesopotamia and Persia.  It's an unreasoning bit of madness that goes on for reasons that few if any understand, and the remaining choose to forget.  Like a millennium old Hatfield and McCoy feud whose beginnings are lost in the dust of history, all that's seemingly left for those who remain is an unreasonable and unreasoning hatred.

Make no mistake however, the perpetuation of this mindless violence does indeed serve a purpose for some.  If you can stoke the fires of hatred high enough, you can get even the most reasonable of the individual members of a mob to commit what they would consider all but unthinkable acts.  If you can distract a population long enough from the fact that while ordering them to do so, their leaders will never put themselves in harm's way, they will never notice the relative ease and prosperity in which those leaders live.  Neither will they understand that it's their almost constant state of siege that maintains the power of despotic rule and has become the major impediment to a better life for themselves.

Not content to stand idly by or simply provide a unifying demonic figure for the region however, and incapable of staying out of arguments that we were long since proved to have no place in, the West continues to attempt to pick winners and losers in the same misguided way that it always has.  Heedless of the horrendous record of its past failures, the West continues to believe that it has the right to wage wars in countries that have not asked for help; doing so in the name of a peace that remains far beyond their grasp at best, and realistically impossible at worst.

Already the nations of the Arab Spring are falling increasingly under the dominance of 'strong men', who will eventually take the reins of yet another despotic government in the region.  Even the sham of democracy which has from time to time reared its head in this region, with fraudulent elections for pseudo representative governments, will soon find itself mired in the recurring story of popular oppression, religious mandate, and an ongoing struggle among tyrants attempting to reach the pinnacle by crawling over piles of dead and imprisoned.  And when the dust clears, it's likely we will once again be left with two kinds of leadership in these lands; bad guys who like us, and worse guys who don't.

I can't help but ask why we don't for example, seem to care about the human rights violations, oppression of women, and autocratic rule in Saudi Arabia; an often twisted monarchy that has been a long time ally of the United States in the region?  Is it that we can't see what's going on, or that we choose to ignore these behaviors since the kingdom buys military hardware from us and allows us to operate what they say are much needed air bases in the area?

Perhaps worst of all in this self-serving bullshit is the harm's way that bureaucrats, diplomats, and politicians who have never raised a hand in anger seem ready to put members of our Armed Forces into.  Though armed with the latest of weapons and provided by their military leaders with the best of tactics available under the circumstances, they are doomed to win the battles and lose the wars, strangled by contradictory rules of engagement created by armchair generals and a strategic goal that's little more than a moving target used by those whose interests are likewise colored by the desire to acquire and maintain power.

Would we even care if it weren't for the oil beneath their sands?  Perhaps ... when the news showed us inspiring pictures of ragged civilians standing up to well-equipped troops; but the fervor would no doubt quickly wane when "American Idol" came on.  How then can we expect these people to trust us, when we lack consistency of policy, of leadership, and of effort?  How can we expect them to respect us when we attempt to buy their friendship; more often than not by throwing bundles of cash to those who if we caught up with them in this country, we would throw into jail?  How can we expect these people to love us when we continue to usurp their sovereignty, deploy troops to their streets, and drop bombs within their borders in order to impose our own particular version of morality upon them?  What point can there be to the so-called benign interference and gunpoint morality when our efforts result in as much collateral damage as success?

Yet we pretend at benevolence in a land that doesn't appear to understand our version of it (and perhaps justifiably so), and seems not to want it (at least from us).  How much of our never-ending efforts have become about assisting the current US government (and many who have come before it)  in its misguided efforts to control its own economy through around the world adventures in military spending; doing things we weren't asked to in places where we weren't invited?  How much of the rest is about ignoring common decency and common sense, as we continue to "protect US Interests" (the free flow of oil) not by attempting to gather that beneath our very feet, but instead by attempting to impose our will on people half a world away.

It's strange (and almost sadly amusing) that at a time when our leaders are worried about removing the bully from the schoolyard, from the street corner, and the Internet; that it's we who are the bully of Middle East politics.  It's tragic indeed that those we purport to help must dream of one day being free of us.



 

TFP Column: When I Was A Child

After a taking week off as a columnist, I found myself time and again returning to a couple of subjects; the ongoing conflict in Libya and the continued negotiations over raising the debt ceiling in this country. 


Unable to choose between the two, I selected a path even more unlikely for me and used a New Testament passage to draw the two together. The result for this week's TFP, "When I Was A Child ..." speaks to the apparent disparity of perspective on the subject of ruling, depending on whether you are in power or not. 


It's extensive use of quotation is likewise a bit of a departure for me, but I hope worth the time it takes to read (and think about). There's a lot going on in NW Ohio worth thinking about, but the only way you're going to find out what it is, is by reading Toledo's largest circulation (and Ohio's Best weekly) newspaper, the Toledo Free Press.

Mixing Politics & Religion

They say that talking about politics and religion is a great way to lose friends; and yet here I am again bringing up the subject for no other reason than that something is beginning to stick in my craw. I feel that there is a lot of confusion out there between these two things, and everyone seems to be too afraid or too sanctimonious to talk about it. 


While everyone is talking about what's going on in the Middle East, quite frankly I'm concerned that there's far too much self-righteousness and religion in politics in this country these days. Doubt or discount me if your will, but before you completely write this idea off, consider the following. 


Forget if you can, the furor over the preacher and church that the current President attended for many years. Imagine instead a candidate for President running in 2012 that announced that he not only didn't attend church, mosque, or temple regularly, he didn't attend one at all. Can you conceive of the uproar that would follow? Can you comprehend the way that such a candidate would be assailed from media, the religious right, and those who believe themselves to be no more than simple "God-fearing Americans". Can you picture the cloud that would gather over what would no doubt be the remaining hours of that failed campaign. 


Yet why should regular attendance at any house of God serve as a qualification for elective office in this country. Does Ford pick their CEO based on his religious attendance? Do investors consider Donald Trump's church (if he even has one) before investing in his projects? Does the market price of Apple stock fluctuate based on Steve Jobs regular attendance at services? Why this should this nation pick its leader based on the regular attendance at religious services? Don't get me wrong. 


This doesn't mean that we shouldn't question a political candidates beliefs. There is in fact an absolute need to know the principles that guide a such a person when they make decisions. Those beliefs however, do not necessarily need to be founded in a particular religious belief, or any at all; let alone their regular attendance at religious services. If recent history has shown us anything, it is that some of those who profess the most public of such beliefs or in fact lead those services have been proven to be the most flawed of human beings. 


Caught up in their personal 'divine revelation', they assume a self-granted mantle of infallibility. With divine authority on their side, they allow those beliefs to dictate that they should work their will on those who they lead, often on some misguided mission to create a world in which only their beliefs reign supreme. Little thought is given to those who believe otherwise, except to add them to the list of those that must be converted. Isn't this in fact what we object to in the theocracies of the Middle East? Isn't this our objection to radical Islam? Isn't this confusion of political and religious mandate what makes us so fearful of their potential for destruction? Isn't the fact that political dissension in these countries becomes blasphemy the concept that makes these nations so out of control and so dangerous. 


Quite frankly I would prefer a political leader who told me that what they believed in was the Constitution, the rule of law, and their personal responsibility to serve the public trust to one who told me that they attended church regularly and believed in this or that Supreme Being. Belief after all, is not something that is subject to the democratic process or to the will of the majority in this country. 


The United States is not a nation where we vote on our favorite religion, making it the path that all must follow. Yes I know that many of the founding documents were written based on Christian principles. I have also done enough reading to discover that many of those Founding Fathers were closet Deists, who like their modern counterparts, wore a public face of regular church attendance in order to advance their professional and political careers. Like those founding documents however, it is the principles that are important, not the place that they came from. 


The world currently looks upon the 'Arab Spring' with mixture of joy and trepidation. We celebrate it when people seek freedom in Northern Africa and the Middle East. We likewise fear what will become of their future as Islamic extremists who see no separation of church and state seek political power in the vacuum created by these uprisings. But are we not likewise guilty in this country of insisting upon a certain level of religious adherence in our leaders? Are we not also guilty of mixing politics and religion?