Time and Perspective

When the case of Trayvon Martin's shooting at the hands of a Neighborhood Watch volunteer first exploded onto the national news scene a few months ago, as many other like-minded people I saw it as fairly straightforward - a vigilante had shot an unarmed teenager, and there was little more to debate. But I held back from blogging about it, certain that there were many details missing, knowingly or unknowingly omitted or distorted, and willing to wager that with time, the story would twist and turn beyond imagination. Rarely have I been more prescient and never has less ridden on my clairvoyance, and from the horrific 911 calls, to the "eyewitnesses" who offered inconsistent stories and whose eyewitness status was sometimes unclear, to the edited 911 tapes and a plethora of first hazy and then enhanced photos of the shooter, the story seemed to change daily. And the wider story associated with it also changed, from an out-of-control vigilante, to racist shadings, to strange counter campaigns against and in favor of hooded sweatshirts.

All of which showed only one thing, beyond doubt: there is no issue imaginable, that will not be hotly and passionately contested by the right and left wing of the national polity. And whatever position has been staked out by the one side will immediately be opposed by the other, even if their positions represent a diametrically opposite stance from the day before. I was especially disappointed in the tactics employed by the supporters of the slain teen, many of them self-professed liberals. I have, of course, long held that the loudest liberals are anything but and would be better described as leftwingers since they lack a true liberal attitude towards opposing points of view.  The worst was to hear these liberals start arguments with a disclaimer that the shooter's personal life and history were unimportant, and then go on to list all the negative details of that history - an underhanded way to undermine the man's character whilst simultaneously staking claim to a moral high road. Other supporters were even worse, with one person revealing the shooter's home address - no matter what one believes about the man's actions and motives, inviting another vigilante to intervene is unacceptable, and hypocritical. I suppose the Black Panthers make no claims to liberal attitude, and hence their reward for action in the case, while a poorly disguised call to vigilante justice, and reprehensible, at least should not reflect poorly on progressives in general. I would not say that the right-wing supporters of the shooter were any better, but I have never expected much from gun-rights advocates, and I deliberately hold  them to a lower standard than I do liberals.

But while a court will now debate the rights and wrongs of the case against the shooter, the story that unfolded aside from the shooting itself is more interesting and disturbing. The National Rifle Association has long belied its name by advocating for access to all sorts of handguns, and the right to use deadly force in any circumstances. They have succeeded beyond my worst nightmares and it is a testament to their success and tactics that they can still portray themselves as an oppressed group in danger of losing their weapons, even as a man who shot an unarmed teenager walked free after a brief statement to the police. It is also a testament of sorts, but to what I cannot say, that advocates for gun control know that news of an unarmed teenager shot down in his own neighborhood by a private citizen would be met with apathy that they sought to inject racist overtones into the story as the only way to draw support and interest. Indeed, it was the seemingly race-tinged aspects of the case that garnered far more interest nationally than the actual facts - an unarmed teenager, walking home from the store to his soon-to-be stepmother's house crossed paths with a volunteer watchman who consciously chose to precipitate that encounter, and at some point thereafter the teen was shot by the watchman. To any advocate of common-sense gun control, the fact that a teen, or man of any age, can be shot by a person who chose to initiate or at least precipitate the encounter is a tragedy; that the shooter can claim full right to do so under the law is a travesty. But America has drifted backwards to a state of almost mythical Wild West proportions, where every violent act is met with apathy at best, or a clamor for more weapons of violence. There are over fifty thousand homicides every year and half as many accidental deaths, but the merchants of death aver that the secret to less violence is more instruments of violence, more widely distributed amongst the population. Never mind that following in their logic, there was from start to finish only one way the encounter between teen and vigilante could possibly end, if both men were armed, and neither had the duty to deescalate the situation, or avoid a confrontation bullets would fly and one or both men would die, and possibly some people, some bystanders might have been reluctant participants as repositories for some stray bullets as well. It's fairly clear that under most circumstances, arming more people would never result in less violence, only more, but that is a message that may not be spoken today, much less will it be heeded by those who shape our laws.

There is a need in America today to debate issues, in depth and with reason and respect for opposing view points. Unfortunately, this does not happen, and seems ever less likely to happen. I am not looking back with rose-colored glasses, and it's obvious that intolerance of opposing views is hardly new in America or the world in general - Senator Joe McCarthy was not noted for his breadth of acceptance when it came to different political opinions, but what has changed is the medium of deliverance and the time we take to offer an opinion and respond to others' viewpoints. In the world of Demosthenes, it would take weeks, even months for a debate to play out and while the Laconians may have been celebrated for their exceedingly brief style of discussion, in general the lengthy periods between pronunciations left a correspondingly greater time for one to think over both positions and weigh the merits of all views. In a world of short attention spans, debate has been reduced to simply stating one's position in made-for-TV soundbites, devoid of substance and certainly not designed to engage the opposition in any meaningful dialogue. This is true of every topic, from union rights to Wall Street criminal behavior, from environmental protection to national security. And all too often the conversation is taken over by unelected actors, unanswerable to anyone, but possessed of great resources and a passion to thrust their view upon the world. Eschewing all compromise, the only intent appears to be to sweep aside opposition, no matter how reasonable their contrary logic may be or how small the differences may be. Misrepresenting one's opponent's position is a key method of discrediting their actual message and in a political world where citizens choose to get their news from outlets that already share their own positions, a nuanced dialogue is well nigh impossible.

And the Trayvon Martin case has highlighted, all too clearly the deep divides in society. Whether it was outrage that the President expressed empathy with the victim, and the victim's parents, or deplorable attempts to portray the shooter as racist, even to manipulating evidence to "prove" that theory or the intriguing idea that the real culprit in the shooting wasn't the man with the gun but rather the hooded sweatshirt the victim wore, the two sides have consistently talked over one another and done everything in their power to discredit the opposing camp. However, now that the case has been moved to the courts, it's time for everyone to take a deep breath and step back from screaming epithets at each other for a moment. It is interesting that if one simply listens to the other side, there are some reasonable, even cogent ideas that deserve rational scrutiny - perhaps one will reject them anyway after study, but at least study them rather than reject them out-of-hand. 

One issue that comes readily to mind is the rough treatment that one Fox commentator received for suggesting that the real culprit in the whole tragedy was the hooded sweatshirt worn by the victim. No doubt the gentleman was mistaken - the real culprit was the attitudes that drove the confrontation -  but there is nevertheless some truth to his opinion, no matter how poorly expressed. In a media storm where any criticism of the victim can be used to tarnish the speaker with the charge of racism the ugly truth behind his words are ignored. Racism did drive the tragedy, but it was not necessarily the overt racist attitudes of the Ku Klux Klan; rather it was the kind of almost subconscious thinking that tinges our every action with racist overtones whether we know it or not. Racism is not a simple "black vs white" or "white vs everyone else" story - every ethnic group is guilty to different levels (ask the average Chinese or Japanese person about the other, and there may be attitudes that would make the Grand Wizard ashamed). We, who pride ourselves on having risen above racial stereotyping need to only ask ourselves about how we'd react to meeting a group of African American teenagers in sweathshirts and drooping pants as against meeting, say, Chinese kids in similar attire. For myself, I know that I am infinitely more nervous around an all white group of bikers than any of my white co-workers would be - I do not consider myself an overt racist (though I don't pretend for a moment that I have risen past prejudice) but I still project my deep-hidden racially-driven fears onto a group I know nothing about and that fear fuels my reaction to them. When a person embraces a culture that furthers a dangerous stereotype - the hoodies, the faux chains and beltless pants around their knees that bespeak a gangster - it only furthers the unconscious reaction in the people around. The overzealous captain was very likely not driven by any racist beliefs, but his actions may well have been subtly influenced by racial bias all the same. While I would still demand that he answer for his actions, I do not believe that he should be libeled as a racist, not for a bias that not only lingers in even the most liberal and progressive of us, and which is constantly reinforced overtly and covertly through every media around us daily.

In the run-up to the last presidential election, Barack Obama delivered a landmark speech on race relations, effortlessly straddling the deep divide between the more conservative views on either side of the racial line. This would be a good time for a new speech addressing the less obvious divide between even middle of the road members of every racial and ethnic group. Meanwhile, as the Florida legal system prepares to try the man at the center of the tragedy, we would all be better served if we spent less time judging the principal actors and more time addressing our own inadequacies and  in the words of Polonious, "Give thy thoughts no tongue, Nor any unproportion'd thought his act...Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice; Take each man's censure, but reserve thy judgment." If there is one mistake that the shooter himself would admit, it would be hasty judgement based on superficial understanding and incomplete information, and it led to a tragic killing. Rushing to emulate that mistake would serve us no better.

Evolving on Equality - It Does Get Better

This past week, the political world was abuzz with the news that the Obama Administration has finally decided its position on the rights of gays and now supports their right to be treated exactly the same as everyone else. Not surprisingly their political opponents have taken a diametrically opposite position, underscored by a lopsided vote in North Carolina to amend their state constitution to deny homosexuals their rights to equality. They have also suggested that the President may have been trapped into this position by the premature admissions of Vice President Biden or that this was just a cynical ploy to mollify their wealthy day donors.

Cynicism is nothing new in politics, and usually is the safer bet on underlying motives. But one cannot have it both ways. President Obama is accused, with some justification, of flipfloping on the issue, dating back to a 1996 statement in favor of equality followed by a more conservative stance as he moved into the limelight, but is also  accused simultaneously of Machiavellian duplicity while being caught unawares by Biden's public statements. The reality is likely more mundane, a case of the President being caught somewhat by surprise but when faced with a clear choice, going with his better instincts and choosing liberal belief in equality over outdated fears and prejudices.

No one, save the President and perhaps his closest confidants can answer truly to his motives. But his words are instructive. And I can understand the ambivalence of a liberal on the subject, prey as I am to my own doubts and questions. On a purely rational level, my mind understands the absolute right of any two consenting adults to marry, and I can easily understand that a stable and loving home is the important requirement in raising children, not the gender of the parents. Judged purely as a matter of rights and equality, there is simply no debate, and as an agnostic atheist, religious mores do not constrain my views in any way. But while the rational part of my brain may be accepting, the visceral reaction, the emotional response to the sight of two men kissing is far less liberal. I'm ashamed to admit that deep down, my more conservative upbringing can still trump the liberal views developed later and in  a more thoughtful way, and in that respect, I think both President Obama and Vice President Biden are far ahead of me.

It is not comfortable to know that I cannot live up to the ideals I espouse and that I know to be right. I know that gays have the same rights as I or any other person, that to deny them a right we take for granted, the right to affirm their love and commitment to their partner is unjust and indefensible. But all knowledge in the world cannot overcome a powerful feeling of unease or discomfort when faced with the actual case. The discomfort is obviously irrational - after all, I feel absolutely no unease in the sight of two attractive women kissing, and I'd venture to say that given the success of such porn movies as "Where the Boys Aren't" a very large number of American men, including a majority of frat brothers and some red-blooded conservative, share my comfort level with lesbian sex as voyeuristic pleasure. If Portia di Rossi was the face of the campaign for equality, instead of Elton John or Andrew Sullivan, it would be comparatively easy to put aside the doubts and wholeheartedly endorse gay marriage. But life is messier than Hallmark cards, and people come in all shapes and sizes and they all deserve the same rights, irrespective of their resemblance to the covers of Vogue.

President Obama made a telling comment when he talked about his views evolving as he saw openly gay people working on his staff and that influenced his feelings, especially his comfort with them. Just a few decades ago, the blink of an eye in human history, people were as uncomfortable with interracial relationships. It was only as personal contact with people of different races grew that the prejudices fell away. One can see the same process at work again, as we are exposed to more homosexuals and we see that they are really just like us, and that this old world of ours will keep on turning just the same the day after we evolve to a more enlightened state. Vice President Biden by embracing his better self has proved that deep rooted prejudices can be overcome once we open our eyes and our minds, President Obama may have had less distance to travel ideologically  than his deputy, but has shown that not only is it possible to have a deep gulf between what one knows to be right and what one can comfortably accept as right and normal - I can only hope that I can grow as well as they have. And for all those who like I are conflicted between the reactions of mind and heart, or those who still cling to their fears and prejudices, it may help to realize that this is ultimately not about us granting gays their rights to be treated equally - that is going to happen - but about us having the courage to grow and evolve to a higher, freer and better place. It does get better, but not just for gays facing persecution, but for all of us.

The Myth of Health Insurance

By this time, the Supreme Court has decided the constitutionality of the Affordable Health Care Law, though we may not know what that is till summer. But whether the law stands or falls, whether the individual mandate that requires every person to have health insurance or pay a penalty or tax, whether Congress interpreted the Commerce Clause accurately or not, the fact is that the basic premise of the US health care system is flawed and the current fix is only temporary, little more than a Band-Aid and less use.

Numerous commentators have pointed out that the model that requires employers to provide health insurance to their workers is an outdated idea that greatly constrains the freedom and flexibility of the workforce on one hand while imposing a huge financial burden on the employer on the other, while providing less value for money spent than nearly any other comparably advanced nation and yet also leaving vast number of people without comprehensive medical coverage. The cost to the employer is uniquely American, and leaves local companies at a competitive disadvantage to companies in other advanced nations that do not have that cost on their books at all; the actual accuracy of that argument could be debated, but that's for another day and for now it is sufficient and accurate enough to agree that US companies pay for their employees' medical care unlike their competition in other countries.  There have been interesting discussions on the logic of taxing or not taxing the employee contribution and whether the employer contribution, usually much more than the individuals' should be treated as the individual's income or not. There is also vigorous debate about the need for pooled risk, shared costs and the wellness programs thrust upon the unwilling. But all these debates, while important ignore the fundamental flaw in the US health care model. This model is based on health insurance and we no longer are buying insurance.

Let me expand my thesis: insurance, in the succinct definition provided by Wikipedia, is is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss.  Like any good definition, every word is important, none less than the terms "risk management" and "contingent uncertain loss". Let us for a moment hark back to the simpler times when health insurance was first introduced  - it was not intended to cover every dollar one spent on health care; in fact most doctor's fees and medicines were paid for out of pocket and insurance was meant to cover those catastrophic events that strike a small number of people, say an unexpected hospitalization just after one had raided the rainy day savings for a down payment on a house. Since only some people need to use their insurance, and since only a small number of people would tap into the insurance company at any given time, the basic insurance model worked. This model has been with us for several centuries now, dating back to the times of European explorer's of the New World and Africa, and the model has not changed fundamentally since then: the insured party pays a premium periodically that over time will exceed the amount the insurer would pay out in claims. Certainly the occasional untimely event might skew the ratio against the insurer, but in general we pay more than we collect. If we didn't, the business model would be unsustainable. When the insurer collects less than the insured amount, he still stays ahead by invoking the probabilities of  groups and pooled risk, meaning of course, that he still collects more from the group than he pays back to the group, even if a few individuals collect more than they pay in.

But when you consider the way health care and the way we pay for it has evolved over the last few decades in the US, it becomes obvious that the insurance model is no longer valid or sustainable. We now may all medical costs from our health insurance, with very few items covered out of our own funds. Not that we have much choice with the high, even ridiculously high cost of medical care, though again the value of medical care needs to be debated in full at some point, at another time and place. Combined with the increasing life span of the average person, and it rapidly becomes obvious that the insurance companies simply cannot fulfill their role anymore. But rather than admit that health insurance as we know it is a dead concept, they have ingeniously invented a vast array of means to stay ahead of the cost curve: rescission, preexisting conditions, gap in coverage, lifetime cap on expenses, false information on the clownishly impossible to understand forms - these are some of the tools and tricks used to deny insurance claims and ensure that they still collect more from the insured party than they pay out. The fact is, if insurance companies tried to fulfill the implied promise to their clients, they would be paying out much more than they collected.

Looking at it another way, the insurance model is based on the insured party probably not having a claim under their policy. How many times do you get into an auto accident? How often does your house burn down? How many times in a year do you get attacked by Martians? And there was a time when medical insurance worked the same way. Today however, it's a given that nearly every person will require expensive medical care, the kind that can be covered only by their insurance company; the small number who don't are those who sudden and quick, and for most part untimely early deaths. The rest of us will be tapping into that insurance pool without a doubt, clinging on to life till the money runs out. There is no management of risk left for the insurance company when the "uncertain contingent event" has become a certainty.

As I see it, the model we have is unsustainable. We may stretch it out a little longer, the insurance companies will find more imaginative ways to deny us our claims. But to be fair to the corporations, they are not people (with due apologies to the Supreme Court); they are in business solely to make a profit, not practice charity and compassion. And in the end, no matter how we slice and dice the question, insurance simply does not work if every insured party wants an unlimited coverage for an indefinite period of time, or will be cripplingly more expensive than anything we've imagined hitherto. Like it or not, the time for health insurance is past, and whatever the replacement, it must needs be based on a different mathematical model.

The Destruction of Sennacherib

Ever since the protests against Assad's regime spiraled out of control, I've been following developments with anticipation. I have to admit I've always had a sneaking partiality for Syria. While their government is undoubtedly ruthless and frequently brutal, they are also in a way the mutts of the Middle East, beloved of no one, with little oil wealth to attract suitors and a history of embarrassing defeats at the hands of Israel, able to play a major role in Lebanon yet rarely respected by friend or foe. When Bashir Assad succeeded his father, there was a brief hope that he would play the reformer so rarely seen in that corner of the world. Yet in the end, he proved to be neither the redeemer of his people nor the iron-handed autocrat Hafeez Assad was; unwilling to react with overt violence when challenged, yet also unwilling to make a truly bold decision, on Lebanon, Sheba Farms, the Golan Heights or eventually the protests against his regime. A part of me hopes that he will somehow find the courage and statesmanship to end the violence in his land and against his own people in an honorable manner but the realist in me knows that Assad has never been that man and that Syria is headed down the same path as Libya and Yemen.

But what really struck me in the aftermath of the Security Council's failure to act pass a resolution against Damascus was the strange reaction in the United States, with even such realists as Hilary Clinton deploring the inability of the Council and many pundits seeing a diminishing of the United Nations Organization in the wake of Russia and China's veto. This seems like a very shallow response and almost willfully ignorant of both history and cold reality. It's worth recalling that in the first four decades of its existence, the UN was able to pass a resolution authorizing the use of force against a nation once, and that action against North Korea was possible because the Soviet Union was boycotting the Security Council and China's vote was still controlled by the Kuomintang. The next couple of decades saw plenty of resolutions brought before the Council condemning actions in various parts of the world, yet few passed and none resulted in UN intervention. The Council was powerless when Soviet troops crushed the hopes of revolution in Hungary or Czechoslovakia. This was no one way street, with the US wielding its own veto in turn to ensure no censure of its action against Libya in 1986 or Grenada in 1982, and extending the shelter of its power to Israel on numerous occasions. Only after the fall of the Soviet Union did we see an unmatched level of cooperation in the United Nations, fostered in part by a controlled reaction on the part of the victors, the United States and a certain deference in China. However as the relative power of each nation changes, China is becoming just a little more assertive of its own interests.

And understanding the interests of the different players is key to understanding the ways to win their cooperation and furthering our own plans. Our childish reaction to the UN refusal to do the right thing is not just counterproductive, it's also self-defeating. We see our desire to stop the bloodshed in Syria as a just and noble cause. However, as one expert on Democracy Now explained very clearly last night, the Assad regime and its Alawite supporters will fight to cling to power with every weapon they have because defeat for them will mean exile at best (and no one around them really wants them) and bloody annihilation at the hands of the liberated majority at worst. In practical terms then, ending the bloodshed is really a euphemism for replacing the current authoritarian setup in Syria with something more palatable to its people, be it a more inclusive and democratic government or a wholesale replacement of the Baath Party. A kindly view of our interests would be that we have the needs of the Syrian people at heart; but our anguish over the bloody struggle is a contrast to our far less voluble interest in other places and peoples under violent oppression. we've stood fairly silently while our client regimes in Central Asia deny their people rights, we've clucked about the violence in Dafur but made few attempts to push through any real change there, and we've been mostly silent behind-the-scenes actors in places like Bahrain and Kuwait. Little wonder then that other nations look askance at our aims in moving a Security Council resolution on Syria that will likely lead to the end of the Assad regime.

When we obtained UN clearance to protect the population in Libya from Gadhafi's wrath, Russia and China were not excited at the latitude that we interpreted in applying that authority. Syria has been a long term ally of Russia, and Putin faces a skeptical electorate this year - he cannot afford to be seen letting an old client and ally get run out of town while he stands helplessly by. Iran, no Great Power in its own right since the days of Cyrus  the Great, nevertheless has pressing interests of its own in Syria. Should Assad's government fall, the new regime will be dominated by Sunnis either religious or secular (most likely the former) but unlikely to be as pliant an ally to Iran or as friendly a patron to Hezbollah. And Iran needs Hezbollah as a key check to Israel, and by extension they then need Assad's government in Damascus. While any new government is likely to be less than cordial to Israel, the turmoil of a revolution and the far more urgent issues thereafter would greatly ease the threat on Israel's northeastern border, and that runs counter to Iran's interests.

China has it's own interests in keeping a very elaborate system of checks and balances in place. Hezbollah is a check on an Israeli strike against Iran, and Iran consumes much of America's attention and resources, especially when they make threats about closing the Straits of Hormuz. There is nothing China would like more than America's attention to fixed firmly on the Middle East, delaying the pivot to the Pacific and giving China a bit more time to improve their position along the western rim. Syria is the key to the complex order, and keeping their regime afloat is then in the interests of nearly everyone else not allied with us. China may well see action on Syria as a harbinger of things to come for their own client in Khartoum; if the logic works at Homs, why not in Dafur?

One hopes that  our policy experts advising the President have thought through the conflicting aims of all parties with an interest in Syria and realized that we lost at the Security Council because we asked the rest of the world to set aside their own interests in favor of ours. (It matters little whether we saw toppling Assad as good for Israel and Lebanon; our actions were judged by the potential outcomes, not our stated reasons). We make this mistake over and over and always seem surprised when others see us a bully; we brushed aside the Kyoto Protocol, we invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein. In part we seem to actually believe our claim that we are acting with purely altruistic motives (or imperative interests), and of course ignore all evidence to the contrary, a dangerous blindness that makes it harder to win skeptics to our side. And win we could if we would frame the discussion in terms that appeal to our opponents. Easing the Assad regime aside is critical, not just because of its crimes against its own people (and let's be real, many outsiders perceive us as just as brutal and ruthless, and perception is as important as reality in this case) but because of the massive refugee problem that would result from the violent overthrow of that regime and the instability that would follow, not just in the delicately balanced neighboring states (northern Iraq with its existing and restive Assyrian minority, Jordan with its fragile balance of Palestinians and Bedouins, Lebanon with a explosive ethnic mix - none of these would wish to see their current problems exacerbated by tens of thousands of Syrian refugees) but the same concerns resonate farther afield too as oil markets are thrown into chaos and the still damaged world economy is battered afresh. Keeping the world stable and spinning is of paramount importance to China, and some deft diplomacy would go a long way to placating their opposition; less heated rhetoric about the Chinese threat would not be amiss either.

But perhaps most importantly we need to heed Polonius' advice, not just in keeping our costume only as costly as our purse can bear, but also in being true to our own self. Our actions are rarely as altruistic as we believe, and we are never as angelic as we claim, and to pretend otherwise is only an exercise in delusion and a sign of extreme naivete or most Machevillian deception to the rest of the world watching us without rose-cored glasses; neither perception furthers our interests. From warring with the Barbary corsairs to protect our trade routes, to standing by while Saudi tanks arrived to protect  Bahrain's king from his protesting population, selfishness and self-interest have always guided our actions; we should not be surprised when others do the same.

The Ministry of Peace

In George Orwell's famous "1984", government has been simplified into three ironically named Ministries, with the unending war overseen by the "Ministry of Peace". There was a time in the not so recent past when nations were fairly honest about calling that organization their "War Ministry" (England) or "War Department" (USA). At some point however, after the end of the Second World War, Orwellian thinking crept in, and even as the US prepared to engage the world on battlefields far removed from her shores, it was decided that such distasteful matters be handled by a more benign sounding "Defense Department"; defense of one's homeland after all could not be faulted by the most ardent peaceniks, not even when it involved bombing countries on the far side of the world.

Now, for the second time in two decades, the US is contemplating a major reduction in its defense budget. While the last significant cuts were a peace dividend from the end of the Cold War, they were succeeded by a huge build-up in military forces after the September 11 attacks and the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and ever increasing involvement in conflicts in Arabia, East Africa, Southeast Asia and elsewhere. The latest round of budget cuts are necessitated by a somber realization that we can no longer afford that heady binge of war spending when our debt is spiraling out of control and nearly every other sector of government is being cut past the bone. But while we may no longer be able to afford such a grandiose war machine, the proposed cuts have nevertheless drawn cries of anguish from many quarters.

It's tempting to dismiss such opposition as nothing more or less than the protests of those who benefit from the military-industrial complex, those with a vested financial in continued war spending, but that would be as much a knee-jerk reaction as the worst of theirs. Rather it is worth asking some hard questions of ourselves, starting with the seven hundred billion question: if a war budget that exceeds one third of the entire world's military spending leaves us feeling so insecure about our safety that even modest cuts provoke such anxiety, is it worth the expenditure at all?

According to GlobalSecurity.org, we not only are the world's highest spender by far, we exceed the next SIX countries combined; once you remove neutral (Sweden, Switzerland, Brazil etc) and friendly (NATO and other European allies, Canada, South Korea, Japan) countries from the list, our spending exceeds the next THIRTY FIVE nations on the list! And yet, I saw an article today that our ability to fight more than one war will be seriously compromised if Obama's proposed restructuring is implemented. In which universe do we expect to actually engage in more than one major war of necessity? And when we talk of wars of necessity, that's hawkishly including the invasion of Afghanistan in that category, a war that was about revenge far more than it was about defending our nation or our national interests. When the military introduced the concept of preparing for two simultaneous wars, they had a plausible if unlikely scenario in mind: a Soviet invasion of western Europe and a North Korean attack across the 38th Parallel. In both places, we had commitments to defend our allies, a national interest in maintaining the security of those places and forces in harm's way, and would feel the need to fight those wars. Today, only the delusional would imagine that we need to game for an open war with Russia - they aren't about to invade western Europe and we have few actual interests in checking Russia's moves against former Soviet republics. To put it bluntly, we have commitments there only insofar as we seek them out by trying to expand our influence in those areas.

North Korea does remain a danger, theoretically, but our forces in South Korea would be insufficient to defeat an invasion. Much of the heavy fighting would have to be done by our ally, till we could get a reinforcing army into action, or alternately seek to slow the North Koreans through air and naval power. Significantly, those are the two branches of the military that would see some increases under Obama's plan. The only other ally that might face a military threat is Taiwan, but for decades it has been obvious that the only way we could defend Taiwan was by naval and air power and the deterrent of our missile system. Again, the reduced defense budget would enhance rather than reduce our capabilities.

In other words, we have little need for an army that's able to fight two wars at one time. The only other war being credibly considered is Iran, but the idea of a land force actually invading Iran is ludicrous. Not only did we find that controlling a smaller nation like Iraq to be more than we wanted, we had the advantage of land routes into the country for our invasion force (two routes till poor planning and diplomacy deprived us of the route from Turkey).  In case of Iran we would have to fight our way ashore with no easy staging area with both Iraq and Pakistan unlikely to offer us assistance, while likely fighting a naval battle to keep the Strait of Hormuz open. While there is no question that the US military can do it, the cost would be high, and the deeper we thrust into Iran the higher the cost - Iran's army may be no match for the US, but it is not as crippled by sanctions as Iraq's was, and their military planners have probably studied the successes of the Saddam Fedayeen in Iraq (the most serious obstacle during our invasion of Iraq) and Hezbollah in their fight with Israel in 2006 . On the heels of two costly and somewhat unsuccessful ventures on either side of Iran, it's almost unthinkable that we would actually attempt a ground invasion; if we did we'd need far more troops than we have even today, prior to any cuts. What that means is that any conflict with Iran will be fought from a distance.


The biggest change proposed in the military is the reduction in Army manpower, and a pivot away from nation building and stabilizing abilities. And that seems like an excellent plan. If we were to assume for a moment that the Army was going to be used in such a role in the near future, which troubled region would we choose? Yemen? Somalia? Dafur? Syria? Pakistan? There is no political will to occupy any of those regions, and no guarantee that such action would contribute in any way to an improvement in their situation. And even should the will exist, which would we choose? How would we choose just one (assuming that we'd still maintain our fighting capability in South Korea) when all of them demand equal response? Rather we will follow our far safer approach of support from beyond the borders, as in Libya or through a military surrogate, like Ethiopia and Kenya in Somalia currently.

Given the near unique position enjoyed by the US, with no hostile neighbors and self-sufficiency or secure sources of all vital resources, it is really amazing that we are proposing so modest a reduction in our war budgets. Attempting to resolve all our challenges and confront all dangers alone and with force is way beyond the capability of our military, even currently. Our better approach would be to evaluate exactly what our vital interests are - perhaps keeping open trade routes through the Strait of Hormuz and the Malacca Straits, abd around the Horn of Africa and - and then working to achieve those aims without force. Keeping a big enough stick handy may be a good idea if all else fails, but carrots can win the same results and are often cheaper. And it's worth remembering that all we need is a big stick not a giant club that may be to heavy to wield and may only end up injuring ourselves. 

Ring Out Wild Bells To The Wild Sky

It's traditional to use this last day of the year to collect one's thoughts, and reflect on events, ideas and important moments of the dying year before ringing out the old. While Tennyson, whose poem inspires my blog post title, may have dreamed of ringing in an era of peace, I am less sanguine  - I suspect we will see more of the thousand wars than the start of a thousand years of peace. One hopes, at the very least however, that each year finds us further ahead in our quest for improvement.

This was a year dominated by three major geo-strategic events, viz. the fall of several long-established despots in the Arab world, the general changes in the political map of the middle east and the stutter dance of the Euro zone leaders struggling to find a voice and policy in the face of stubborn economic depression and the rise of a new counter culture against the Establishment and power of the oligarchy in America. The big stories sometimes obscure other less visible, but equally important trends and the challenge for an amateur student of geo-politics is to identify those obscured threads and understand their significance in the wider picture.

By far the greatest story has been the continued turmoil in the Arab world, with the fall, and death of Col. Qaddafi in Libya, the elections in Tunisia and Egypt, both won by religious parties, the withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq and the continued squabbling between the Iraqi leaders and the war of words between Iran and the world. But by far the most important story from this part of the world is the increasingly bloody civil-war-in-all-but-name in Syria. While the violent civil war in Libya absorbed American attention far more, mostly because of the involvement of American military forces, the events in Syria may have far greater ramifications. Libya certainly had a lot of involvement in the affairs of her neighbors, but compared to Syria, Qaddafi was a model of non-interference. Syria not only dominates the political scene in Lebanon, but also housed the leadership of Hamas and was locked in an unresolved state of war with Israel. Less spoken about but equally important is Syria's role in stability in both Iraq and Turkey, involving Kurds in both countries as well as Assyrians in northern Iraq, a role that greatly increased after the end of Saddam Hussein's government and the influx of refugees including Iraqi Baathists into Syria. And of course, Syria is an unapologetic ally and conduit for Iranian pretensions, especially vis-avis Hezbollah. While the government of Bashir Assad has seemingly lost legitimacy, at least in the eyes of the western world, it's worth recalling that the government has never had any greater legitimacy in the past, and if it survives this challenge to it's survival, the world will happily forget this phase and bestow upon it all the blessings of legitimacy again. And while the Obama Administration is reportedly working with European allies to plot an exit strategy for Assad and his coterie, the greatest fear is a collapse of Syria into chaos, a fear of the unknown that animates not just Washington and Brussels, but also Ankara, Tehran, Baghdad and Tel Aviv, and likely terrifies Beirut. No one really knows what would happen should Syria collapse: how would that affect Lebanon, how would their government and Hezbollah, a state within the state, react to Hezbollah's loss of both patron and critical supplier? how will the Palestinians react to the loss of their patron? will they stand on the sidelines, or will they choose to join in? will the loss of sanctuary push Hamas into  accommodation and compromise, or will they hew to a more hardline stance? will a flood of refugees into northern Iraq destabilize an already unstable arrangement between Kurds, Turkomen, Assyrians and Sunni Arabs? will Kurds from Syria flood into Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan, challenging tenuous arrangements in both countries? and most important, faced with the loss of power, will the Baathists around Assad seek to divert attention by confrontation with Israel, a tactic they may have already tried once before this year? Most importantly, we know very little about the Syrian opposition, just as we knew little about Libya's rebels, or the thousands who flooded Tahir Square to confront Egypt's Mubarak. We believe they are secular and likely friendly to us, but the longer the violence continues, the more radical groups will replace the moderate voices. The Arab Street has so far confounded all expectations, but the stakes in Syria are greater than anywhere else, and managing a soft landing in Damascus may be the greatest challenge to the world going in to this new year.

Europe's financial woes are well documented and analyzed past comprehension; it is not my intent to try and add to the discussion, especially in a subject I barely understand,  but the long drawn-out struggle has exposed and exacerbated other wounds within Europe that make a highly intriguing story as well. Most attention has focused on the economic problems, the austerity measures and the wealth disparities between north and south Europe, but there has been relatively little discussion about the social fissures in almost every European nation. It's a fairly accepted fact that extreme economic problems feed radical and often xenophobic political movements; Europe has a rich history of such movements, and plentiful targets in the numerous ethnic minorities that reside in, but have not become a part of, their societies. The past sixty years have been largely peaceful, and one may argue that it's not due to just the massive destruction and dislocation of two world wars, but the security of their welfare states that tamped down the historic urges to lash out in violence against outsiders, both within and without their borders. Now the safety net is fraying, and Europe's anger is likely to be unleashed again. So far that anger has been focused on the governments pushing austerity on the middle class, but it is only a matter of time before the anger turns towards the "outsiders" as a society wrenched from the comfortable life they'd come to regard as a birthright seek easy targets for their sense of disenchantment and grievance. The only good news is that Europe has been softened by easy living, to a point where they are less danger to the world than ever before, with a shrinking native population (and xenophobia makes it a lot harder to harness the energy of their immigrants) and atrophied armies that are mere shadows of the Grand Armee or Wehrmacht of yesteryear.

There have been many other stories this year, from the Occupy movement and the discordant yet passionate reaction to the excesses of capitalism and the power of the oligarchy represented by Wall Street, the killing of Osama bin Laden and the weakening of the original al-Qaida coupled with the rise of many more radical Islamic groups inspired by but not affiliated with bin Laden, the earlier than anticipated change of guard in North Korea with all the unknowns that entails. But for my money, the biggest under the radar story is the changes in China. Things are changing fast in the Hermit Kingdom, and how the Chinese government manages the slowing growth and increasing expectations in a world that is harder to control will shape the future of the world. I've argued before that China's facade hides many structural weaknesses and that the fundamental political flaws in an undemocratic society make it harder to navigate through difficult times. An aging population, increasing competition in low-level manufacturing as wages rise, lack of a social security net and healthcare system, unrest amongst ethnic minorities, a rising demand for higher quality of life - the list of demands facing China is extensive, and the government while seemingly aware of the dangers has not always shown that they know how to address them successfully. Recent rebellions have illuminated both the cracks in the structure and the uncertainty in the ruling circles about how to respond. Above all China is flirting with danger as they stoke nationalist fires to keep society behind the government, for those demons once released are nigh impossible to control. China's government has a critical year looming, and their success or failure in addressing the challenges before them will largely shape the chances for peace in the region and the world.

Wither Innocence

One of the great concepts bequeathed the world by the British was the revolutionary idea that every man, no matter the crime of which he was accused, was presumed innocent until he was proven guilty. This concept is now accepted if not practiced in nearly every country, and life without this critical bulwark against government totalitarianism is unthinkable in our bastions of liberty. And yet the idea is in fact under attack, in many different forms, and for myriad reasons. When such a vital freedom is threatened, it would be normal to expect the attack to come from some covert and secretive cabal, seeking to extend their power over the population for their own aggrandization. It is almost scarier to find that these protections have been willingly, even eagerly if unknowingly ceded in an attempt to assuage our fears. And while some of those fears are understandable, a fear of the unknown, fear of that that is beyond our ken, fear of the outsider and the stranger, we are also driven by a fear of the darkness that lurks within ourselves, a fear of what we dare not face and which can be hidden only in the deepest dungeons, and if the presumed innocence of our fellows must be the sacrificed to silence the demons within our breast, then we appear more than willing to pay that price.

Over the last few months, two cases have revealed our slide away from the heights of liberty. These cases while providing an almost ridiculous counterpoint to our slower descent into self-imposed serfdom, nevertheless reveal much about our indifference to the principles that are our greatest shield of liberty and freedom. Earlier this year,  a woman was accused of killing her own child in a selfish attempt to trade the burden of single parenthood for the carefree party-filled life she'd once known and seemingly craved once more. There was an outpouring of anger towards this young woman, and she was tried and convicted time and time over in the media; yet when finally brought before a jury of peers, she was found innocent of her crime - the prosecution could simply not build a case that established her guilt beyond doubt. While few people doubted that she'd lied many times and to nearly everyone about the facts of the case and her role in and knowledge of the events, in the end there was no compelling evidence that she had actually killed her own daughter, and the jury, I believe, did the right thing when they chose not to convict her. Her guilt, and the actual crimes she may have committed, distract from the more worrying issue here; the public trial of and later the threats against this woman were a sad violation of the concept that every accused criminal is innocent till proved guilty. When the freedom of a person, or their life even, hangs in balance, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

The second case, still at a pretrial stage was part of an earlier discussion, and is somewhat personal to me by virtue of the effect it has had upon my Alma Mater. Jerry Sandusky has been accused of molesting and forcibly raping young boys, a crime that if proved will likely see him spend the rest of his natural life in some form of imprisonment. But the key fact is that right now we have accusations and a Grand Jury indictment, not a conviction. The man, no matter how much his crimes may appall, is entitled to his day in court, and the presumption of innocence till proven guilty. And that proof of guilt must come in court, when he has the chance to face his accusers and challenge their evidence. However, few commentators afford him this curtsey; to be fair to them, perhaps Sandusky has done all he could to destroy his own credibility as an innocent man through his own interviews, and the general population when confronted by crimes of which he stands accused largely react with a lack of rational thought.

I have observed that many people, even a majority perhaps, react with great vehemence when forced to confront crimes against children, be it murder or rape. Perhaps it stems from outrage at such an injustice towards the most defenseless and innocent section of society, perhaps it is driven by an idea of the moral outrage that is expected in the face of these crimes, perhaps it is a fear that to not denounce the accused as a monster deserving of immediate lynching will suggest a sympathy for the alleged criminal and his actions. Whether the desire to bypass the path of slow justice is prompted by our inner angels or demons is moot; it weakens our greatest protection against capricious injustice and imprisonment, and the fact that it's done in the name of swift justice makes it even more dangerous. We do not react, in general with the same bloodthirsty fervor to man who might steal a trifling amount to keep his children from starving. But we cannot reserve our justice for the criminal who arouses our sympathy. Every person, good or bad, is and should be afforded the same protection before the law, and if we would suspend it in cases where the accusations appall us, inevitably we will find ourselves at the receiving end, convicted without trial and summarily punished, guilty by virtue of being accused.

While warnings of danger to our entire civil society may sound like the rantings of Cassandra, it's worth recalling that Cassandra's dire warnings were proved accurate when it was too late to prevent the destruction of Troy. And the writing is on the wall, if we would only stop to read the signs. When the agents of al Qaida brought down the Twin Towers, their actions launched the War on Terror, a nebulous poorly defined fight with an undeclared enemy. And in the name of security we imprisoned people on suspicion of terrorist actions, and ten on suspicion of terrorist plotting, and even on suspicion of sympathies towards terrorism. And since the people we arrested were "foreigners", from countries that hated us, we turned away while they were imprisoned in secret prisons in remote corners of the world and we pretended that they were being arrested because they were guilty. We were unfazed by the fact that they would not be tried, not even before military tribunals but would be left to rot in dungeons till the undeclared undefined war was over; after all they were not like us, and the fact that they were in jail was all the proof we needed to satisfy ourselves of their guilt. Now, a new law is proposed that would extend those same possibilities to all US citizens, complete with provision that would empower the government to hold anyone suspected of terrorist sympathies without trial till the end of hostilities. Imagine for a moment if this concept was used in the War on Drugs, which has been underway for over thirty five years with no end in sight. The War on Terror, with no clear protagonist and hence no real way to have an ending, may drag on as long or longer.

I have never embraced the libertarian concept that the government is some alien entity to be feared and destroyed. I believe that the government is nothing but our collective civic bargain, and that it can and will be anything we want it to be. But a government, like an soulless entity is programmed to increase its power, unless we actively remain a part of it. And when we abdicate our civic responsibilities and allow our prejudices to trump the procedures and principles of law, no matter how noble or fearful our motives, we move a step closer to a day when we will no longer have those procedures and principles to be our Aegis in our moment of need.