Brexit a Harbinger of Things to Come?

The Brexit shocked nearly everyone, not the least of all its supporters.  Many Brits stayed home thinking that such a thing could never happen.  Is the United States headed towards a similar fate?  Will Democrats and Independents stay home because they simply don't think that Donald Trump could possibly win?  He will win if that happens.  This Time article suggests that Brexit and Trump ideologies are inextricably linked.  Certainly, the voices that support Trump are louder, but are they really more numerous?  If Democrats and Independents stay home in November, Trump supporters won't have to be large in number, they'll be too loud to count accurately.

Remember Ukraine?

People have been killed, communities have been torn apart, planes have been shot down, and Russia unilaterally changed Ukraine's borders.  After significant coverage when the war began, it seems as if the world (and the press) has forgotten (or become comfortable ignoring) what's happening.  Yes, there are other stories: Syria, the U.S. mid-terms, North Korea hacking Sony Pictures.  

But it seems as if no one wants to pay attention to this corner of the globe because doing so would make it difficult to maintain the illusion that the worst is over.  Maybe it is.

The article linked above discusses the most recent cease-fire and reports that Russia has turned on the natural gas flow.  Maybe this is the result of the settlement of a contractual dispute.  Or maybe this is a glimpse of humanity (though unlikely) from Putin.  Either way, we need to continue to observe and remember Ukraine's troubles, or they will be repeated elsewhere.

 

Assad: Support Me or the Terrorists I Fostered

While it's impossible to tell if Assad started this war knowing that he would breed a whole new generation of terrorists, but he's certainly capitalizing on the development.  Shortly after the war began, he instructed his army to focus its weapons on the Free Syrian Army.  First, he knew that fighting two enemies was much more difficult than fighting one.  Second, he realized early on that he could instead make the FSA fight two enemies.  From this war, ISIS was born...or at least metastasized.  

Now, Assad is positioning himself as a friend to the UN and a partner in the "War on Terror".  I blogged one year ago (8/15/13) that Assad might have a point when stating he was fighting terrorists.   

I guess I was wrong.  He made a point of not fighting them and now we have to...again.

Hamas v. Israel: The World's War

Let's be fair and clear: this is not a war between the average Palestinian and the average Israeli.  Both would do more for peace than their leaders.  Hamas has hijacked the land Israel returned to them (Gaza) through a war with its own people--Fatah (which still controls the very peaceful Palestinian Authority).  They now use civilians as human shields and schools and hospitals as weapons' caches.

Hamas has also turned Gaza into a launching pad where it hurdles missiles that cause more panic than harm into Israeli towns.  Indeed, compared to the raping, pillaging, destroying, and proselytizing of Assad's Syrian Army and ISIS, the conflict between Israel and Hamas is almost innocuous (or would be if it were not for the deaths of innocent people on both sides).  

But, where are the outcries against the Assad regime?  Why are people in France and Italy and everywhere else so willing to villify Israel, and tolerate ISIS and Assad?  The answer, of course, is antisemitism and clear sides.  It's difficult to know where the Syrian Free Army stops and the Assad regime starts.  The world is no fonder of Arabs (except Palestinians) than Jews, so it tolerates the brutality of al-Qaeda in the [insert region of Middle East here] and ISIS.  Also, Israel and Hamas present the world with clearly-drawn lines on a map, and two peoples who (while more alike than different) are easily identifiable based on their geographic locale.

One thing to consider, of course is that if Hamas felt they could get something out of bombing an anti-Israel rally in Paris, or London, or Qatar, or Venice, they would not hesitate to do so.  

As long as Israel uses weapons instead of words to try to protect its own people, and as long as Hamas would rather indoctinate youth into hating Israel and then using them to cover Hamas's precious missiles, rather than teach them tolerance and non-violent resistance, hatred of Israel and Jews will rise.   As long as Hamas doesn't start sending suicide bombers into Israeli soft targets, they will win the P.R. war.  Until both sides can even look at one another, however, will win the real one.

Ukraine v. Iraq...What is a Superpower To Do?

It's hard to know which is the bigger and scarier tragedy.  Russia's nearly successful effort to annex an even bigger country than Crimea and essentially start a third world war; or ISIS's successful rampage through large swaths of Iraq.  

Optimisim seems to be trickling out of Ukraine.  Despite Ukraine signing the very pact with the West that apparently encouraged Putin to attack and take over Crimea in the first place, there are no new signs of Russian transgression.  Perhaps peace will ultimately prevail.

No such luck in Iraq.  After billions of dollars and probably hundreds of thousands of lives squandered, terrorists are once again in control of a large portion of southern Iraq.  Airstrikes are likely to be temporary successes and will probably create more jihadis than they destroy.

Those of us who remember watching (with both terror and fascination) the 1983 hit War Games (and for those too young--Matthew Broderick essentially brings the world to the brink of nuclear war by hacking into a government supercomputer designed to do anything to ensure its own survival) will ponder whether the most prophetic line in the film was, in fact, all wrong: "The only winning move...is not to play."

Just How Hungry is the Russian Bear?

So far, nothing has stopped Russia from its latest land-grab.  Crimea, a country within a country, now owned by another country has been the first nation to become Russian since other countries left in the 1980's and 1990's.  

President Putin denies that he wants to "annex" (read, send in troops to a country that borders Russia in which there are Russian speakers and essentially rig an "election" in your favor) any other nations.  This NYT article briefly describes the European reaction.

Poland and Maldova have the most to fear from further Russian intransigence.  Poland has a history of being "annexed" and Maldova knows it looks very much like a tasty morsel to Putin's growing appetite.  Both countries want assurances that the U.S. and EU will do more than level sanctions at banks individuals.  Perhaps it is statement of how far we have come since the Cold War and WWII that there has not been a cataclysmic confligration of military might in the area.  Or perhaps it's a statement of just how weary the American public is of wars in far-away places based on remote goings-on.  Hopefully for Poland, Putin is digesting nicely instead of licking his chops.     

Though Well-Remembered, History Doomed to be Repeated

The 1980 Moscow Games will always be highlighted by two independent yet related phenomena.  The first, of course, was the United States' victory over Russia in the most famous hockey game ever played.  The second is the Cold War backdrop against which the Games were played.

 Russia gets its second chance to host the Games, this time in Sochi, and a chance to do it without Cold War rhetoric.  Unfortunately, the two foes are at it again.  This time Ukraine is the new east/west Germany.  In a dialogue that is all too familiar, the west wants the Ukraine to open its markets and manufacturing to Europe and the U.S.  Russia wants Ukraine, which is essentially the only buffer between it and the E.U. all to itself.  Ukraine is caught, literally and figuratively, in the middle.

It seems that time does not heal all wounds, or if it does, it does not seal them permanently.

 

Iran: Nukes or Negotiations?

Iran is either easing itself into calmer more tepid waters, or sliming its way into an inevitable maelstrom.  It is hard to know where to start the analysis.  Lately the world has seen responsible (if not peaceful) overtures from this complex and often duplicitous country.  Certainly Iran wants to have a stake in the future of Syria since it looks more and more like Syria's future may be resemble its past.  Iran cannot afford to lose the ground it has made there.  Turkey appears to be thinking for itself again, and hopefully removing Iran's shackles.  Thus, there is every reason for Iran to start acting like a responsible nation. 

What price will we pay to entertain promises of deals to end fears of Iran's nuclear ambitions?  Israel, the nation Iran has publicly chosen for eradication, sees itself caught in a conundrum.  It must either acquiesce to a U.S.-brokered deal, or maintain its aggressive stance alone.  The rift between U.S. and Israeli foreign policy is now very public. Only time will tell if Israel's fears of continued proliferation and a nuclear arms race are well-founded, or if they are baseless (one can only hope the latter).  

If Iran is to give up its ambitions, why must it make the world sign an "interim agreement?"  Why not turn over the keys to Homs and so many other sites to the IAEA so inspections can begin?  If an arms race is not in the making, as Israel fears it is, why is Saudi Arabia already working on building its own capabilities?

So many questions, so little time. 

The Two Irans

A softer, more tolerant Iran has emerged as of late.  The new president Rouhani has been the first to speak to a sitting American president in years.  Despite Israel's (likely well-founded) concerns of delay tactics and duplicity, Iran may be offering the West new hope of a peaceful resolution of whole host of issues, not the least of which is Iran's nuclear ambitions.

In true Iranian fashion, however, the regime hacked into U.S. Navy computers the very same day President Obama and President Rouhani spoke.  Details are scarce, but they include greater cooperation between Russia and Iran.

 At once we see encouraging and dangerous signs from a xenophobic, anti-Western, complex, and potentially volatile country.  Perhaps President Rouhani is attempting to respond to the young, troubled, pro-Western populace; or perhaps he is as a much a tool of the ayatollahs as his predecessor.  Perhaps we are seeing two Rouhanis.

The Thick Red Line

Will we ever know who sprayed chemical weapons on innocent Syrian citizens caught between two sets of mass murderers?  Unlikely, but that will not stop every Western nation from exploring their military options.  The U.S. already has Naval assets in the area, and they are just itching to launch their way into another intractable war.  Here is a user's guide to the war so far.

What is the proper response?  If we ask questions first and shoot later--we risk taking too long to mount a retaliation that proves we are still capable of deterring chemical aggression (clearly we weren't as of several days ago).  If we shoot first, and ask questions later, we ignite another Iraq or Afghan conflict.  If we act to destroy all the chemical weapons, we risk killing more civilians with the gasses we are attempting to destroy, and the use of which we seek to punish.  If we kill Assad, we risk the installation of a far-worse option (if one exists).  If we kill a few Syrian soldiers, have we really responded in a meaningful way? 

If we've learned anything, it's that there is no such thing as a proportionate response.  We've also learned that in the new world of warfare, the enemy is far too elusive for conventional responses.  If a response is developed, let it be one that most of the world can agree on.  Let it be one that truly deters because it has the backing of the friends of Syria.  Let it be one that signifies an end to the tolerance of the death of tens of thousands already wrought by conventional weapons.  Only a response that encompasses these principles is truly proportionate.