Category Archives: Commentary

All written commentary.

The Syria Deadlock

  By

“War in Syria: Major powers in a strategic deadlock”

By far the most comprehensive explanation I have yet read about why the major powers on both sides of the Syrian Civil War are deadlocked and can’t figure out how to resolve it (through either war or peace). This one is probably going to have to burn itself out. There won’t be a 19th century carve-em-up style peace conference or a Dayton Accord. And Russia has figured out how to tip the military equation close enough to balanced to block a NATO intervention.

Free trade has hurt Africa — but could also help it

  By

The IMF forced a lot of countries to end protectionist barriers with first-world nations, which flooded out most of their domestic manufacturing. But the barriers are still in place within the continent. Thus it’s easier for African nations to trade outside Africa than within. But unlike first-world nations that basically have no demand for African supplies except minerals, other African markets would probably make for great sale points. Could reducing continental trade barriers match African goods to big markets that OECD nations can’t offer? 

Brief thoughts on Turkey’s protests

  By

The police probably over-reacted and the protesters should have the right to assemble and complain about things. BUT — they aren’t freedom fighters resisting a tyrannical government. They’re extremist secularists who are unhappy with repeatedly losing democratic elections and would probably prefer secular military control to democratic moderate Islam. That’s not admirable.

Sometimes democratically elected governments do things you don’t like but aren’t gross violations or oppression. The solution is to protest peacefully and respectfully and then organize and defeat them at the ballot box. You don’t get to riot against a legitimately elected government because you don’t like their policies. 

Lacking the right to assemble is a pre-existing problem, not one tied to this particular administration, so I would separate that out of this situation. I also believe there is always a need to respect minority rights within a liberal democracy, but I don’t believe that’s really the issue here.

The AKP has done a tremendous amount of work in advancing and stabilizing representative democracy in Turkey, in a way that actually represented the population — something the secularists never did. The extreme secularists are fanatically opposed to the incumbent government no matter what it does — much like the tea partiers opposing President Obama — and they have been waiting for an opportunity to challenge the government. They controlled Turkey for many decades and supported repeated military coups to prevent non-secularists from taking power. The current government has already beaten back one or two coup attempts.

This is not about their rights being respected, this is about their bitterness at being out of power for 10 years. They are not being persecuted, they are just being unsuccessful at winning elections. The protesters’ cause is basically as illegitimate as if the Canadian left tried to riot against the conservative Harper government because of their own fractured incompetence and inability to win elections for half a decade, and they decided that made him Hitler. There’s a big difference between minority rights being infringed and losing free and fair elections several times in a row.

The AKP has been way better about respecting everyone’s rights and representing the people than the secularists are or were. They’ve also dramatically expanded public education, especially for young girls, and they’ve empowered more women to study at universities. If this group of extremists took power, they would immediately start trampling citizens’ rights, particularly non-secularists’ rights.

This is about being bitter losers looking for an excuse to fight, rather than about being a harassed minority. The US and other Western democracies should stand by the government (though not the police response) to preserve a successful model moderate Islamic government for the region to look to in democracy-building.

Two-Prong Test for a Syria Intervention

  By

I just quickly wrote this out in the past hour based on a half dozen papers and radio segments I’ve done in the past, but I hope it is illuminating in some way to readers.

When considering a U.S. humanitarian military intervention — i.e. an intervention premised upon the notion that it will stop some atrocity in progress, as opposed to one premised upon a direct national security interest — I have a very simple two-pronged assessment system:

1. Does the United States have the capacity to execute the intervention successfully?
2. Will the intervention create a net positive outcome for the involved civilians while not worsening the position of the United States?

Those two clear points address myriad potential problems. And both must be satisfied to justify intervening.

The first one tells you not to do it if the U.S. can’t militarily execute a strategy successfully (for example if the topography, geography, or type of war prevent the successful use of the primary tactic such as airstrikes — or if a strike/invasion won’t actually stop the atrocity or accomplish its goals). And it tells you not to do it if the U.S. military is stretched too thin for a successful operation at necessary levels due to other engagements. Finally, it tells you not to do it if it brings reasonably likely chance of getting sucked in and failing after an initially successful entrance (a quagmire isn’t a win and avoiding one falls under capacity to succeed).

The second one tells you not to do it if intervening will make the situation worse for the affected civilians (total anarchy and brutal civil war with mass civilian slaughter *resulting from* an intervention is not better than “liberating” an oppressed population — see Iraq). And it also tells you again not to intervene to save a population if the goal is totally open-ended and will make the U.S. more precarious. If the presence of U.S. troops helps stabilize a situation and establish a workable transition to a permanent replacement, that’s fine. If the U.S. troops exacerbate a situation or are the ONLY thing preventing genocide permanently, that doesn’t help either. There has to be a better plan and a way out/forward for both the affected civilians and for the U.S. Why? Because even setting aside U.S. interests and costs, every quagmire intervention makes it less possible to help the next place. Thus it’s against global humanitarian interests to have a failed mess of an intervention in any one place.

I actually highly support the principle of military interventions for humanitarian reasons that don’t directly affect U.S. interests. But only if they satisfy those 2 criteria.

Syria doesn’t meet that 2-pronged test. Due to Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. isn’t prepared for a short or long intervention in a large(ish), mountainous nation like Syria that’s in the middle of a big civil war with no clear end in sight (or even a winner to back that won’t screw over the population later or stab the U.S. in the back). There’s almost not even a concrete goal the United States could successfully “achieve” in such an intervention. No easy way to take out the regime, no plan to deal with the resulting mess if the regime does fall (which won’t end the conflict), and no legitimate group to empower to lead a transition successfully to reunite the nation. So the first one fails. And it’s not at all clear (unlike say Libya or Kosovo) that the U.S. can even actually help the civilian population and could even make it worse. While harming U.S. strength. So the second definitely fails.

Thus, the U.S. shouldn’t intervene in Syria as the situation currently stands. If the scale of chemical weapons attacks — if they are indeed being used on civilians — increases dramatically, the benefits of an intervention may rise above the costs. And if they were being used in a different country even once, that might be another story. But right now, right there, it’s a no go. Everybody would lose.

11th century Umayyad Mosque minaret felled in Syria war

  By

TPM:

The 11th-century minaret of a famed mosque that towered over the narrow stone alleyways of Aleppo’s old quarter collapsed Wednesday as rebels and government troops fought pitched battles in the streets around it, depriving the ancient Syrian city of one of its most important landmarks.

President Bashar Assad’s government and the rebels trying to overthrow him traded blame over the destruction to the Umayyad Mosque, a UNESCO world heritage site and centerpiece of Aleppo’s walled Old City.

 
This was one of the most important surviving sites of the Middle Ages and particularly of the Middle East. It was a historic edifice at the center of one of the greatest Islamic empires in history. People are quoted saying this is comparable in terms of world heritage to blowing up the Taj Mahal or finishing off the Parthenon.

This makes it the fifth (out of six total) UNESCO sites in Syria destroyed or severely damaged during the civil war. The famous Crac des Chevaliers crusader castle has been looted.

Endorsement: Ed Markey for Senate

  By

I’m endorsing Congressman Ed Markey for U.S. Senate in the Massachusetts Special Democratic Primary on Tuesday April 30, 2013. You can request an absentee ballot (due back to your local election office by 8 PM on 4/30/13) here: http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/eleifv/howabs.htm Or find your polling place here: http://www.wheredoivotema.com/bal/myelectioninfo.aspx

Ed Markey has been a committed progressive Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives for decades. He’s the best candidate to represent the state, Massachusetts Democrats, and Massachusetts working and middle class families. Like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, he will be a fighter for all Bay Staters through consumer protection efforts and banking reforms. His record shows he will stand up for gun control, better education, and stronger public health in our nation.

He has shown strong leadership on issues of climate change and environmental protections – including writing the first cap-and-trade bill for greenhouse gases and getting it passed in the House – when other officials were focusing on less important trench warfare political battles in Washington. He makes a point to discuss scientific issues in a factual manner when others are playing politics. Groups like the League of Environmental Voters are enthusiastically supporting Markey because he’s been such a champion on climate, clean energy, and science. Rep. Markey is the only person suited to take up John Kerry’s legacy in the Senate of working on climate change and environmental protections.

Markey has also proven himself as a progressive time and again on issues of reproductive freedom and health insurance reform, while his opponent has voted for choice restrictions (such as the Stupak Amendment) and against Obamacare. I believe any Massachusetts Democrat should support expanding health coverage and protecting a woman’s right to choose. That’s one reason Markey received Planned Parenthood Action Fund’s endorsement and a 100% rating. Massachusetts can’t risk electing a Senator who might vote to confirm anti-choice judges.

Congressman Markey has been for many years a committed supporter of and leader on equal rights for the entire LGBT community – not just some of its members – earning the endorsement of MassEquality and a 100% rating from them.

Additionally, Markey has made our nation safer by pushing for legislation adopting recommendations of The 9/11 Commission. I don’t always agree with some of his votes and views related to defense and foreign policy, but even so I believe we need some liberal voices counter-balancing the conservative hawks in the Senate. Too often lately, the voices in opposition to foreign policy over-reach are coming from less well reasoned and isolationist places in the libertarian part of the spectrum, which is not the same as cooperative internationalism. But I do agree with his desire to wind down the War in Afghanistan promptly and to control and reduce nuclear arms and proliferation. He worked to get us out of Iraq faster and was a supporter of efforts to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Both show a commitment to restoring the United States’ image on the world stage, which will strengthen our global leadership capacity and restore our alliances.

Learn more about Ed Markey and his positions at EdMarkey.com

On Miranda Warnings

  By

This weekend, following the national drama of the Boston Marathon Bombings and metro area manhunt for the culprits, I’ve reposted & added notes to old posts on handling/prosecuting terrorists in the United States.

I wanted to add a note about Miranda Warnings because there’s been some hysteria over the fact that Suspect Number 2, who was taken alive, had not been “Mirandized” (read the standard notification of his legal rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights) on the grounds of a “public safety” exemption to the Supreme Court-mandated advisory. First off, it bears repeating that there are no such things as “Miranda Rights.” This is a common misnomer. The rights, as mentioned above, come from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They were not invented by the Supreme Court’s Miranda v. Arizona decision in 1966; the court just established guidelines for a succinct set of warnings in an advisory to those being arrested so that they don’t later try to get their conviction thrown out because they weren’t notified of their right to have an attorney present and their right not to self-incriminate. Those four warnings are the ones you hear on television all the time, beginning with “You have the right to remain silent.”

Second and more importantly, he is not losing rights and no one is trampling on the Bill of Rights because the administration has invoked a “public safety” exemption and skipped the reading of the warnings. As I understand it — the “public safety” exemption on Miranda Warnings does not mean that the government will be prosecuting based on evidence obtained by statements made prior the warnings, so rights are not infringed. They usually use the exemption when they already have plenty of evidence — in this case a video has now surfaced of Suspect Number 2 placing one of the marathon bomb backpacks and walking away … so he’s going to jail no matter what he says or doesn’t say to investigators — rather they use the exemption when they want/need to find out quickly about other stuff they don’t already know. For example — they skip the warning of the right to remain silent so that they can ask if there are other bombs set to explode later or if there are other affiliated terrorists in the area. If he admits to having placed other bombs and they haven’t read him his rights, they probably can’t use that as evidence for further convictions, but they can at least find and disarm them. And at any rate, they still can’t compel the person to answer just because they didn’t officially read them their rights. Similarly, if they ask for a lawyer without prompting, the interrogation stops until a lawyer arrives. (This happened in January 2009 with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, when he was not Mirandized, after attempting to blow up a plane to Detroit in front of hundreds of witnesses.) Your rights remain whether or not you are advised of them. Not providing Miranda Warnings doesn’t take away rights and it can actually hinder prosecution later — so the exemption is used sparingly to obtain urgent information for public safety not to obtain new evidence for trial.

I also find it hard to believe that a 19-year-old who grew up in American culture wouldn’t know the Miranda Warnings from television — even Chief Rehnquist’s 2000 decision upholding Miranda v. Arizona that he originally opposed noted that the warnings had “become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture.” He is in all likelihood well aware of his rights even if they don’t mention them. And that’s all the Miranda Warnings are: a brief mention of your rights under the law & Constitution. The rights themselves don’t change or disappear if the warnings are modified or skipped.