The Creation of the Unwinnable Presidency

So here he finds himself, going to the American public this Tuesday night to make the case for taking military action in Syria. The Civil War in Syria, which this July went over 100,000 deaths, has been a non-existent topic in the national debate for much of the time it has been raging on. On August 21st, however, footage began to pour out showing civilians dying, apparently the victims of chemical weapons strikes. The US government quickly began to place the blame on the Syrian leadership, including Syrian President al-Assad. The Syrian government had been collecting chemical weapons for years, and had even (allegedly) used the weapons (admittedly, in much smaller doses) already during this conflict.

Today, in an interview with Charlie Rose, Assad not only denied that he was behind the chemical weapons strikes, but also indicated that the evidence that chemical weapons were used was not irrefutable. Assad's administration, hedging their bets, has also indicated that if the weapons were used it was the rebel forces which used them. Into this mess walks President Obama.

He tried and failed to build an international consensus that taking military action against the Assad regime would be prudent. In fact, he ended up with so little support that he is now going to Congress to get approval to take these measures, although he could very easily take action without Congressional approval should the administration deem it necessary for American security. Once it became obvious that the House of Representatives (at least) would be unlikely to back the military action, Obama was left no other option but to go to the well one more time and take his case to the American people.

We have allowed the creation of an unwinnable Presidency in this country. Setting aside, for the moment, the question of if a military strike in Syria is justifiable (let alone if it would be beneficial), let's look at this equation from a strictly political standpoint. There are a number of possible actions that the USA could take in Syria:

1. Do nothing, stay out of the conflict entirely
2. Make small, "behind the scenes" moves designed to influence the outcome of the conflict (ie arm the rebels, send supplies, etc), but make no overt actions
3. Denounce the violence on the international stage and take action to damage Syria economically (sanctions, embargo, etc) or militarily (more directly arming the rebels or influencing those supplying Syria with arms not to do so)
4. Take limited military action, such as enforcing a no-fly zone (ideally risking no lives on either side from US action)
5. Take more involved military action such as cruise missile strikes (risking lives on the Syrian side, including the risk of innocent civilian deaths)
6. Take additional military action such as air strikes (risking lives on both sides)
7. Engage in a limited "boots on the ground" campaign (perhaps to train the rebels or to secure chemical weapons supplies)
8. Engage in a broad "boots on the ground" campaign (highest risk of loss of life on the US side)

All of these actions carry with them a certain amount of risk, even doing nothing (case in point: Nazi Germany). At the present time the USA is pretty firmly sitting in option three, but is looking to take steps to move towards option five or six. Now, for the political no-win situation the President finds himself in. Suppose that Obama looked at the information indicating that their were chemical weapons used, and did nothing. Why, he's a do-nothing President who is soft on terrorism and doesn't stand up for innocent victims of a dictator. Suppose that he make the case for limited military action. Why, now he's a President who only takes half-measures and who is putting the US into situations where we shouldn't be. It's easy to see how he found himself here: "Dubya" used every bit of international trust when it comes to these things, and China and Russia gain a great deal by creating a "powerless" super-power. Make no mistake, the Republicans will decry Obama now for wanting to take military action, but in 2014 will turn around and either a) criticize him for not doing enough, or b) for doing too much.

A no win situation through and through. I feel for anyone who takes on this job. I wonder if he ever looks at it and says "only three years left..."? I can't help but imagine he does. 

9/11: Words Cannot Describe

I woke up this morning and watched the programming for the 10th anniversary for 9/11. It's hard to believe that a decade has passed since that day, which I still remember so vividly. Riding my bike to school ... taking the GRE ... the announcement and moment of silence in the school ... the ride back ... watching TV with my parents throughout the night and trying to make sense of it all.

There is no doubt that the world fundamentally changed on that day, and that the course of the world I would live in shifted dramatically. Seeing President George W. Bush today made me think about how much his life, and his administration and legacy by extension, changed on that brilliant September morning. Without 9/11 we probably are not at war, in the midst of the longest war in our nation's history. Without 9/11 who knows? What I do know is that I don't, at the present time, have the words to put my thoughts down onto paper (or a website as the case may be). On that day in 2001 my life, and the lives of six billion plus people shifted forever. And so, in honor of those who died that day, and all those who have given their lives since then, I will simply pass along art. A song, performed at Saturday Night Live, in the aftermath of that horrendous day. Paul Simon. The Boxer (click on video and it will take you to the site).

A Perspective On Obama and Palestine

Sorry to keep dropping links on you, but this is an interesting perspective on Obama's recent actions vis a vi Palestine. It's not too long; check it out.

Take A Look Around

Bill Simmons wrote his weekly article in the hypothetical today (check it out here). In doing so, he more or less openly questioned the sanity of the NFL ownership, who seemed to have been in a power position only weeks ago, but now seems to be losing public credibility by the fistful. In a similar sense, I was having a conversation the other night in which I was lambasted for questioning the direction everything (not just sports) was going in.

It seems to me that so much is hanging by a thread, and that the future is more uncertain now for a large portion of this world's population than ever before. The Middle East is in a great deal of turmoil, from Libya, to Egypt, to, all too quietly, Iran. The entire region seems to be ready to burst, and this time it doesn't have to do with a US invasion of a neighboring country. We are (mostly) out of Iraq. We are focusing on an endgame in Afghanistan. Even the Saudis can't ignore the reality that this wave of fervor across the region might lead to massive upheaval. Of course, even in the ivory tower that is the USA we see this upheaval, and it impacts those who have least the most. Gasoline costs soar, daily it seems, in this country, making travel cost prohibitive at a time when people are traveling further to go to work than any time before, due to the lack of jobs. I remember going to Los Angeles in 2004, driving through the desert east of LA, and having to stop for gas at the oasis there. The price of gas was north of $3.00 a gallon there, a price I couldn't comprehend. Now, it's everywhere, and all because the region has been lost.

I'd have to write a book to accurately take you back through the blunders which compounded upon each other to lead us here, to a time where the Middle East was out of control, and that our economy seemed inexorably tied to that out of control train. I may have the time to do so at some point, but for now it becomes obvious: too many dictators backed, too many revolutions thrown down, too many countries invaded for less than compelling reasons, and too much support for an Israeli regime that has made a living being too similar in its' actions to the very dictatorships in the region that threaten it. Still, perhaps this was inevitable. Perhaps we were always heading here, to a point where our options seem to be: fundamentally change our approach and expectations, or continue allowing the rich to get richer, the poor to stagnate, and the backbone of this country to fall apart.

At times it is really difficult to imagine a palatable outcome to the situation which engulfs us. Optimism borders dangerously on being out of touch with reality at times like this. The NFL, NBA, and MLB labor situations are a microcosm of this bigger stage. The NFL owners, for one, don't feel that being worth billions of dollars is enough. They want more, and they are willing to raze their very economic playground to accomplish it. They don't care about anything but the ever increasing bottom line. Same thing for the NBA, only the NBA doesn't make as much money as the NFL. MLB has quietly flown under the radar, with their labor deal set to expire in December. Maybe it's time to try something radical, and to set a price limit on professional sports. Perhaps it's time to allow socialist thinking into the way we regulate sports. This is capitalism run amok. Why stop with billions of dollars of profit, when you can push further and continue to make this situation even more ludicrous than it already is?

Time Will Pass So Quickly

Just sitting here, writing this post, thinking about these things ... just doing this brings goosebumps up and down my arms. I can't really put a finger on it, but I can FEEL emotion welling up inside of me. So many things are rushing through my mind, and it is hard for me to really know where to begin with this story. And so, I suppose, I'll start with the title and move forward from there.

On February 28, 1999 my Grandfather passed away. I was in Jr. High School at the time, and he and I were rather close. It hurt quite a bit, but the timing was as right, as the timing of those things can be. His passing gave me an impromptu jolt forward, from childhood to a bit of adulthood, and it framed quite a bit of my thinking through the next few years. Since the day of his funeral I have carried the same card in my wallet. It's from his funeral, and has a poem on it, as things of that nature often do. A portion of the poem which I often have focused in on read "Time will pass so quickly, but time will heal the wounds." Throughout many tough times in my life I have meditated on these words as hope for the future and moving forward.

If my Grandfather's death was impact moment number one in my childhood, the first moment which violently moved me towards adulthood, then the second moment occurred September 11, 2001. Sitting in a class room in my High School, taking a standardized test, we had no idea what had just befallen our country. If this were to happen even today I have no doubt that someone in that class would have received a text message, or a facebook update, or a twitter about the goings on. Even in the classroom. But in 2001 I didn't even have a cell phone yet, and those who did were not yet brazen enough to carry them into a class, at least not on.

So we sat, totally unaware of the world shifting under our feet, for a few hours while we took tests that we had to take to be able to graduate. The last moments, as it would be, of our childhood were slipping away, and we had no idea. The world was changing, and the paradigm that had worked since the fall of the USSR, the same basic idea that had encompassed our world view for all of our lives, was almost instantly gone. When Mr. Cook walked into the room with a such a serious look on his face I knew something was up. He told us that we would remember sitting in that class, that day, the same way our parents remembered where they were when JFK was killed, and our Grandparents when Pearl Harbor was bombed. The weight started to pound down on me, but in a calm, strong, articulate manner he managed to convey what had happened. And I jumped forward yet again.

Perhaps it was preordained from birth that I would get into politics, but I have a sneaking suspicion that 9/11 cemented my direction. I finished my remaining years of High School continuing to distance myself from much of what I had held dear, and moving out towards ... something. I wasn't sure then, and I would be lying if I told you that I was any more sure right now. I got involved with Student Government, and we pushed through a number of goals that others had tried and failed to achieve. I was Senior Class President, but by the time I graduated I had burned most of the bridges I had with my various social groups. I moved towards Indiana University with a sense of cautious optimism.

I settled on Political Science as my major while sitting with my roommate to be in a room without air conditioning in Bloomington, in mid-July. It was hot, I was wearing hair down to my shoulders, and had not shaved in about two months. It was my first time to Bloomington in nearly a decade (I never visited, just applied, was accepted, and accepted their acceptance). And I was reading through all the various majors which were offered, and trying to settle on something to tell my "advisor" in the morning. A big state school, particularly a Liberal-Arts one such as IU, gives you every option under the sun. I settled on Political Science for the outward reason that I had always loved History, and wanted something I'd love, yet I also wanted something that would challenge me to grow. And so the die was cast: I would study Political Science.

I suspect that inwardly I was still feeling the aftershocks of 9/11. I had no idea what focus I would have within the department, and I actually had no idea what the department could offer. I signed up for one Political Science class (Intro to US Politics), which I figured would be nice and easy since I had taken AP Government in High School. I wasn't genuinely moved within my major until, on a whim, I signed up for Y109 my second semester. Introduction to International Relations was the name of the class. A portion of my third jump forward was about to occur, although I had no way of knowing at the time.

You see, my freshman year in High School I saw George W. Bush take office by beating Al Gore. I still, to this day, will be honest and tell you I would have voted for Bush whole heartedly if given the chance. My freshman year at IU I again saw Bush win office, this time by beating Kerry. I was voting now, for the first time, and I was genuinely conflicted by my choice. On the one had you had Bush, who was the devil I knew, and who, to that point, had one big strike against him in my book: he had totally, systematically mismanaged the occupation of Iraq. My initial support for the War in Iraq is a story for another day; still, by 2004 I knew that it wasn't going well, and I had determined that Bush was, above all else, not a great Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. On the other hand you had John F. Kerry, who was nothing if not a worthless joke of candidate. I couldn't envision Kerry as President. I weighed the devil I knew against the devil I didn't, was convinced that in Indiana it wouldn't matter anyway ... and swung with Kerry as a "protest vote."

To be honest, even with everything that befell the Bush Administration since that point I STILL feel dirty about having voted for Kerry. I don't think I'll ever feel comfortable with that vote. But 9/11 had changed me so much in such a small period of time: I began to delve in to international relations, and I focused on the Middle East. First with Kuwait, and a study of a "close" American ally in the Middle East. Then, after being given a research internship, with the Middle East Northern Tier. Again, the following year, with the Persian Gulf region. And, finally, culminating with a study of diplomacy in the nuclear age, and an Honors Thesis on the Iranian nuclear issue.

My time at IU was quickly shaped by 9/11, even if I didn't realize it at the time. Political Science wasn't even a fleeting thought in my mind on that day, yet by the time that six years had passed I had become knowledgeable on the Middle East, international relations, diplomacy, and nuclear weapons. The world changed that day, and I changed that day, and those changes really do closely parallel one another. There are other things that played integral roles on how I ended up here too, most significantly the reality that Hurricane Katrina brought every American about how unprepared we were to deal with our own problems even as we tried to fix the world's. But, sitting here today, I can honestly say that there are at least dozens of other things I may have ended up doing had those planes not hit the towers, or the Pentagon, or the field in Pennsylvania. It is mind blowing that I can sit here and say that eight years have passed. EIGHT YEARS! On the one hand, it still feels like yesterday to be honest. But, quite on the other, it seems like an eternity has passed. It seems like ancient history, or at least history of the World War II variety where we are still seeing the outcomes but the impact itself seems so long ago.

And now I work with kids, in residential placement, trying to make the world a better place quite literally one life at a time. And, again, I wonder how I got here. This certainly isn't where I thought I would be if you had asked me three years ago. I still can't believe I've been out of school for over a year. On some levels I feel like a failure because I'm not doing what I was "supposed" to do, but on other levels I feel like a success exactly because of that reason. Is grad school a real option for me? I know some people who were born and bred for it. I worked with them at school; hell, I LIVED with them at school. I don't talk to any of them anymore, for a variety of reasons, but I know that I'm not built like them. One thing that I have learned about myself is that no matter how academic I make it, no matter how intellectual I try to keep things, I still feel them too much to truly keep it separate. I work with these kids because this is tangible, and I can see my successes and my failures up close and personal. I'm not sure that I could ever see the results like that in the academic or government settings, and for that reason, perhaps above all others, I can honestly say I'm not sure where I'm going. But today, at least, I know where I've been, and where it has taken me.

I'm still not sure what to make of the world we've been left with following 9/11. Sometimes I feel like Frodo does in The Lord of the Rings: "I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened." I think we all feel that way from time to time in life, when we get down, when bad things befall us. It is not Frodo's quote we need to remember, however, but instead Gandalf's response: "So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us." Time has passed so quickly, but I can say that, even if time has not quite healed the many wounds that life has left with me, I have also lived a lifetime in the past eight years. Only time will tell what the next eight may bring.

The Multi-Step Dance to War

As I am getting ready to leave for Chicago to go to a White Sox game (yuck!) I was looking over the New York Times, a habit which I developed while in school, and still follow. Today there were two headlines which grabbed my attention. The first was about Obama's news conference, scheduled for tonight, in which he is expected to articulate again his argument for health care reform. The Times argues that this fight over health care could be the "defining moment" of Obama's Presidency. I sincerely doubt that it will be the defining moment, as it is almost impossible to identify the defining moment of a President's term until quite a way down the road. Furthermore, when defining moments happen, they usually occur in the realm of foreign policy. Think about it:

-Dubya had 9-11 and Iraq as his defining moments (even if Katrina should be in there it won't be)
- Papa Bush had the 1st Gulf War
- Reagan had the fall of the USSR
- Carter had the Iranian Revolution and the taking of the US Embassy
- LBJ had Vietnam
- JFK had the Cuban Missile Crisis

In other words, in the post WWII era (A.K.A. the era of USA as "superpower") the majority of Presidents have been defined by a foreign policy issue. Even Nixon would likely would have been remembered for his trip to China and his Cold War diplomacy had he not been a paranoid idiot (see Watergate). Even going back to Truman's second term, Korea was his defining moment, so the trend holds. That leaves us with three post-WWII Presidents who are not easily defined by Foreign Policy issues (Eisenhower, Ford and Clinton), and a fourth who would have been if he wasn't so stupid (Nixon). Eisenhower's presidency was largely uneventful, except for the whole nuclear proliferation thing, so I suppose you could throw him in with the others. Ford pardoned Nixon ... that's pretty much his defining moment, I guess. It's hard to say what Clinton's defining moment would have been, but it's pretty easy to recognize that it is Monica. So, if you're keeping score at home, the post WWII presidency, starting it with Truman's second term, looks a little something like this:

- 11 Presidents
- 7 who are easily defined by a Foreign Policy moment (Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II)
- 1 who, after much thought, probably would be defined by Foreign Policy more than anything (Eisenhower)
- 1 who, if he wasn't an idiot, would have been defined by Foreign Policy and as a great diplomat (Nixon)
- 1 who didn't really do anything other than bail out his predecessor (Ford)
- 1 who couldn't keep it in his pants (Clinton)

And so, if you're a betting person, would you bet that health care reform will be the "defining moment" of Obama's presidency? I certainly wouldn't, and that brings me to the second article from the New York Times which caught my eye. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is starting to throw the idea out there that the US might be looking into extending a security blanket over the Middle East. In practical terms, this means that the US would guarantee the security of many (mostly Sunni) Arab nations in exchange for them helping us to counter the growing Iranian power and prestige in the Gulf. While the article is quick to note that Clinton did not mention fortifying these nations militarily, that is the logical end to this problem. If Iran continues to push forward, and if the Security Council remains split due to China and Russia's loyalties and economic investments in Iran, the next logical step (according to US history) would be for the US is to begin heavily backing other key players in the region. We've done it before, and it would not shock me to see us do it again.

If I was betting on what will become the defining moment for Obama, I'd take a long hard look here. The Iranian situation is not going to go away easily or quietly. The Supreme Leader has dug in for the battle, even in the face of the Clerical establishment splintering between the old guard and the reformist wing. Ahmadinejad will come out of this election cycle significantly weakened, but that will likely only embolden him to try to regain that power. He does not seem, to me, to be a player who will be content to simply hold the office. He is an all or nothing thinker, and will try to find the time to reassert himself. So long as Ahmadinejad has control of the Revolutionary Guard and the other key aspects of the Iranian military and government you can bet he will push forward with his nuclear ambitions. Khaminei seems to have made his bed with Ahmadinejad; he will seemingly choose to lay in it. Barring some internal upheaval, led by Rafsanjani (who alone might have the ability to move the Clerical establishment and the populace, and is seen on the left), the change we desire in Iran is unlikely to come from within.



To that end, the question for Obama will be can that change come from without. I sincerely doubt that anything positive will come from US meddling here, but we may not end up having choice. The Obama administrations has been treading very carefully along these lines, and that should continue. They cannot forget that the regimes we would be fortifying in the Gulf are, in almost every case, less democratic and more tyrannical than the regime we seek to dispose of in Tehran. Backing the Saudis, the Egyptians ... this might seem like the logical move, and it may very well be the best move. But we need to be well aware of the long term ramifications of our actions. Lest we forget, it has barely been twenty years since a war we sponsored to rid the world of the Mullahs ended.
We supported Saddam Hussien in that war, and less than twenty years after he failed to crush Iran we ended up sacrificing a great deal to discard him. The very monster we made (the picture above shows Saddam shaking hands with none other than Donald Rumsfeld). Those who do not learn history are bound to repeat the same mistakes; hopefully the Obama administration will continue to think long and hard before it takes any brash action towards the Iranians.