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.

Bleeding Blue and White

It's not been an easy week to be a Penn Stater. As the University grappled with its mistakes, the criticism mounted, some of it well directed, and those of us who are normally so proud to claim State as our own had to bow our heads in shame for the failures of those who should have known better. Let me say at the outset that if Jerry Sandusky is guilty of any or all the crimes of which he has been accused, he deserves no sympathy and all the punishment due under law. And similarly the University administrators, including President Spannier will deserve the fines and/or other chastisement coming to them if they are found to have failed in their duties, to the school and the wider public.

But let us understand first that these crimes must be proved in court of law, not the fickle and easily swayed court of public opinion that cares naught for facts but twists and turns with the tides of emotion. The Grand Jury indictment seems extremely clear, and there seems little doubt. But due process is just that. Sandusky, no matter the crimes he's accused of, deserves his day in court and his guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt before a jury of his peers. For the University, there is less to quibble over - whether Sandusky is convicted by a jury of his peers, or walks out a free man, the administration needed to act on suspicions and allegations, at least to the extent of involving the police. Unless they can show that they did, they stand guilty of misconduct.

But what of the others, those who acted according to the letter of the law, but now have their lives shattered in the frenzy and madness of the national outcry that erupted this week. Coach Joe Paterno, a man who seemed to epitomize a bygone world of honor and conduct, was summarily sacked, as the University sought to deflect the dogs by throwing them the red meat they sought. If I sound bitter, it is because I am. People outside Penn State have watched uncomprehending as students have rallied in support of our icon, while they, filled with moral rectitude of the highest order have declaimed on the many reasons that JoePa had to go for failing to stop what was happening. Based on national frenzies past, I seriously doubt that these critics have much interest in anything beyond the story, and the moment in the spotlight it affords them. For all their pontificating about the defenseless children, I would wager that most of them have no real interest in the victims, and the shriller they are, the less they care. I don't say that they are bad people, far from it. I'm sure that there really is a sense of revulsion and outrage, but they are so obviously focused on simply ensuring that someone, anyone pays, and pays immediately, that one cannot help but feel that they protest too loudly.

Critics of JoePa tend to fall into two or three categories. The loudest, and most influential group is the myriad columnists and op-ed writers with their generic "Why Joe Must Go" articles. Their basic position is that Joe must be sacked because he failed to do anything beyond what the law required. Quite apart from the questionable standard here - a law is clear and defined, while action beyond that is purely subjective - it conveniently skips past the fact that Coach Paterno did exactly what the law required him to do, and the Grand Jury recognized that when issuing indictments of his supervisor. To contact the police on his own, based on hearsay would have been wrong; it was the responsibility of the Athletic Director to move on those issues, especially after meeting with the graduate student who witnessed the incident at the center of this scandal. Yet, critic after critic has piled on, declaring that JoePa should be held to a higher moral standard.

Much of this stems from outrage that the victims here are children. The editors and columnists, in common with numerous people chipping in to join the conversation have insisted that they would have acted differently. I have no doubt that all of them would like to think that they would have risen to those lofty moral heights, but the fact is they do not know what they would have done. It's easy to declare exactly how we would behave in any given situation, but reality belies our hopes. There has been much criticism of the graduate student for leaving the scene and calling his father, instead of intervening or calling the police. The criticism is not unfounded, but in fact the spirit is usually willing but the flesh all to often proves weak. The student behaved, well, like a human being. He panicked, but panic and human frailty are not crimes. Now there are people who want to see his head on the spike beside his mentor's; threats have ensured that he will not fulfill his coaching duties at the next game, and his career may be well over before it even began. Does such treatment inject iron into the spine of the next person faced with this situation, or does it suggest that seeing and hearing nothing may be easier on one's health? Had he said nothing at all, no one could ever say that he had in fact witnessed anything. But he did act, he did report it, and for acting as well as he could he is now demonized and taunted.

Finally, there are those who insist that JoePa should have asked more questions and not rested till he'd gotten results. These ignore the human weakness in all of us. It is incredibly hard to believe bad of people we like, and our minds can rationalize almost any situation. It is easy for us sitting at home to insist that we would have acted differently, but we fail that test everyday, if we would only look critically at our own actions. It is no coincidence that many child molesters are family or friends of the victim's parents, that the molestation continues for long periods before it's finally detected. There have been cases where parents have flatly refused to believe their own children, such is the power that affection for the accused can play. To cite just one simple example, look at how political allegiances can affect reaction to similar accusations against Herman Cain and Bill Clinton. We can all hope that when tested on something major we will rise to the test and pass, but a little humility would be well placed when passing judgement on others who have faced that test. Jerry Sandusky had been JoePa's colleague for nearly four decades - only those who have had to act against their best friends can begin to comprehend what that means. The rest of us should simply hope that we never face that nightmare, for I doubt any of us would cover ourselves in glory. In discussing this with a colleague at work, he began with the common argument that Joe should have done more, but then recounted a tragic and all too common tale. Serving on a jury, he had heard first-hand testimony from a woman who aided and abetted in the molestation and sexual abuse of her own daughter by her then husband (the girl's step father) till her marriage hit the rocks and she reported his years of child abuse to the police. Think about this for a moment: a woman allowed her child to be sexually assaulted, refusing to listen to the child's complaints or recognize what was happening before her eyes (or at any rate behind her back) till her faith and trust in her husband and the rose-colored vision melted away in the heat and acrimony of a divorce. Yet we expect that Coach Paterno, a man from a different day and age, to suspect his friend and lead a vigorous investigation of that man. In all honesty, would we believe if someone accused one of our close acquaintances of such a crime, or would we shrug it off and insist to ourselves that no one we know and trust would ever be guilty of such actions? Do we really know how we would react? Why then do we demand that someone else be held to standards of which we would likely fall short ourselves?

Equally significant, while the sharks circle Penn State and her former Coach, the people actually appointed to watch for these issues receive a free pass from scrutiny. The Second Mile charity that allegedly was the primary vehicle for Sandusky's actions was in close contact with the children who became the alleged victims. This was an organization dedicated to working with troubled children, and yet they saw nothing to arouse their suspicions. And yet we demand that an elderly man far removed from the children, with no special training in working with children, with no interaction with those children, should have suspected wrongdoing and intervened. The State Police investigated Sandusky and cleared him of all charges once before - they seemingly had no reason to suspect that they had missed anything or that they should continue to keep an eye on the man; yet none of those so incensed with Coach Paterno have demanded that heads within the police hierarchy roll or that anyone within that organization be held accountable for fouling up an investigation.



I wish this had played out differently. I, too, like everyone caught up a situation not of their making, wish that more questions had been asked, that Joe had followed up his report with a bit more pointed queries. I wish that the gatekeepers at Penn State had been more farsighted when they sought to hush the matter, I wish they'd simply followed the law. I wish that Jerry Sandusky had never acted in a way that led to this. But most of all, I wish that Joe was there, leading us out the tunnel on Saturday. He was and is a great man, and now his career and life have been destroyed by the actions and inaction of his friends and the blood sacrifice required whenever a scandal is discovered.

Occupying Left Field

Since my last blog, I've been following the Occupy Wall Street movement with a little more interest, fueled in part by segments on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and last week's series with Citizen X in Doonesbury. While I had an instinctive sympathy for the protesters from the start, the cacophony of messages and disparate agenda made it harder to understand their aims. But once I delved a little deeper, and read a little more about them, I realized that these protesters, for all their reported elitist demeanor, are driven by the same angst that animates all of us. they are everyman, in a sense.

I suppose, though I still cannot understand them, that the Tea Party tapped into the same deep anger. Of course, one would have expected that anger at the economic mess that President Obama inherited would have been directed at the architects of the financial system's collapse. Yet strangely enough, the Tea Party galvanized opposition to the president, and in truly unfathomable twist, made the Affordable Healthcare Act the central point of their campaign against Big Government as personified by him, even as they rallied in defense of his perceived attack on Medicare, the epitome of Big Government, one would say. Stranger yet, the men elected with the support of the Tea Party wish to balance the budget by slashing Social Security; surely if Medicare is sacrosanct and not to be shrunk, especially by the government, the same would hold true for the other pillar of the Great Society.

Perhaps, the one lesson the Tea Party has taught us is that logic and rationality in the message are far less important than passion. That should enthuse the Occupy Wall Street movement, since passion is in no shortage amongst them. Their critics may watch the early snow storms and gleefully hope that the protesters will disperse before winter's iron fist, much like the Grand Army. But the fact is, whatever the message, most OWS protesters have a genuine grievance and are less likely to turn and limp away, when they have little to return to. Conservative critics may lampoon them as over-privileged over-indulged kids who don't want to work; the reality is that no matter how willing both spirit and flesh may be, there are precious few jobs on offer, much less to graduates fresh out of college with no work experience or those who have fallen victim to the recession and been out of work for months on end. Franklin Roosevelt could put America to work building the infrastructure that transformed a nation but today there are no comparable programs to absorb those thousands or millions of unemployed. Where then shall they go?

And the common target for that popular anger are the barons of Wall Street. Though many of the worker bees of Wall Street may not quite fall into the 1% category, their general refusal to accept their role in destroying the wealth of a generation marks them for dislike, loathing and even hate. I fully expected that in 2008, as the extent of their malfeasance came to light that we would see, metaphorically, mobs with torches and pitchforks. I misunderstood the power and extent of the control Wall Street exerts over the levers of government. Not only did the President and his advisers do much to avoid demonizing them (and still drew shrill rebuke for any remarks that were less than flattering to those titans of finance) but more importantly, the bailouts were tailored to protect their investments and profits at the expense of the taxpayer. It's instructive that Europe's negotiated bailout over the Greek debt involves a fifty percent write off by the banks. Contrast that with the hundred percent return that Wall Street was guaranteed on their poor investments and one may begin to understand the frustration and anger that's building amongst those who have seen their lives destroyed by clueless wizards waving their monetary wands and causing billions of dollars to vanish in the blink of an eye.

The Tea Party rode their passion to a huge Congressional victory, and today shape the future of the nation as they walk the halls of government. So far the OWS movement shows no interest in turning into a political beast. That is both its strength and ultimate weakness, for the soldiers on the frontline of this struggle will never know when the fight is over, much less will they reap any benefit personally, even when they force change as in the case of Bank of America and its now-aborted attempts to levy debit card fees on their customers. Those of us on the sidelines will win much as the OWS movement shapes the public discussion and hopefully nudges the spectrum back towards the middle and towards sanity. But they, the protesters who took to the streets of the financial world seeking to shine a light on the great disparities and twisted realities of the American Nightmare will fade from view and be forgotten. For them, victory will bring no success -  I only wonder if they know it. And how we will look upon them as this saga plays out. With nostalgia, with mild surprise, or sideways at them as we stand beside them in the trenches?

Occupy and Change

This weekend, the "Occupy Wall Street" movement went national, even international, with protesters taking to the streets in cities across the world in sympathy with the original activists in New York. I very nearly did go downtown to watch and gauge the movement firsthand after a I met a fellow fay spirit while lunching at my favorite Scandinavian bistro. As it happened, I did not head down to see the activists, so my information about their aims remains dependent on the mixed messages reported in the news media.

One of the interesting things about this mixed bunch is their lack of leaders and unified message. In that sense they are not so very different from the Tea Party activists who seemed to appear out of nowhere in a short period of time to oppose a host of President Obama's policies, starting with the healthcare reform bill and growing into a potent political force that dragged the Republican party strongly to the right and changed the conversation profoundly in the run-up to the mid term elections. The OWS protesters coud not be more different in outward appearance, or tactics, and despite some liberal hopes that this ragtag army will restore equilibrium to the political world, I strongly doubt it. First and foremost, the Democratic party has not really decided what to do about this movement, just as the GOP initially hesitated in their approach to the Tea Parties. It's true that Nancy Pelosi has expressed some support, as has Al Gore, but they are certainly far less on the fringe than their counterparts on the right who rode the Tea Party wave; Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House and currently Minority Leader and Al Gore, former Vice President and ex-Senator are a far cry from Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. Critically, the protesters have not targeted any political party, but seem more inclusive in their approach - if they have a common ideal it is the power of rich corporations to control the political process. And that power of corporations is exercised through minions in both political parties and corporate dollars flow into the coffers ot all politicians. This group of economically disenfranchised activists is wary of all politicians; even if they probably dislike the GOP more than the Democrats, it is only a matter of degree.

While the liberals tended to disparage the Tea Party - for one, we could and still cannot understand why they would oppose policies that succored them in favor of the corporations that seem to enjoy the fruits of our labors, or rant against the government being involved in healthcare while vociferously defending their Medicare entitlements - the right wing press has naturally attacked the motives, methods and hygiene of the OWS activists, while also portraying them as losers who wish to deny the titans of Wall Street their honestly won wealth. In this, they are joined by the citizens of Wall Street, one of whom mocked the protesters with a sign in his office window. And yet, that single act might do more to galvanize this protest and turn it into a surging movement - Wall Street and its financial companies haven't just nearly destroyed the world economy, but they do not understand or accept the mistakes they made nor the debt of gratitude they owe the US taxpayer. They have been bailed out from their own mess with billions of tax dollars, yet they have paid not a single cent in return. Instead they have reaped massive profits even as the rest of the economy has sputtered. Their fancy derivatives have protected their profits (when guaranteed by the US Treasury), but not the actual assets, the houses and the people who own them have continued to sink into a sea of debt and the same banks that created this problem have reacted with incredible myopia and insensitivity. And in many cases, with less than legal or at least ethical methods. They have taken our money but given us nothing in return. Now the OWS movement demands that the system be straightened out and the balance between workers and management be restored. In many ways the situation today is not so very different from the days of the robber barons, minus the Pinkertons with rifles. But we have a system where all the profits are kept by a small sliver of the populace, though all of us suffer their losses. Corporate power has grown to ridiculous levels, and controls all aspects of life. Not in a sinister "Big Brother" style, but certainly very completely. We can no longer trust any news outlet without wondering what their motives are - Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch, NBC by GE, ABC is part of Disney Corp. These companies are not inherently evil and do not actively censor the news. But they are amoral corporations dedicated only to maximizing their short term profit and the media they own will naturally reflect their preferences.

Human costs simply do not enter into the calculations of corporations, and in the end that recognition is all that OWS needs to achieve in order to be considered successful. But getting their message across to the wider public while opposing the very organizations that own the media is definitely going to be a challenge. In this respect, the diffuse system of leadership, or lack of central leadership to be more honest may actually be an advantage. Speaking with a million different voices, espousing many messages, some that match and some that seem rather diverse, actually makes it impossible to block sans a concerted and illegal operation by many different corporations. And the corporate world while united in profiting on our dime, is no single entity capable of mounting such an exercise. Millions of opinions and messages flowing across the many social media cannot be stopped or controlled, except by heavy handed and ultimately counterproductive actions, a la Egypt's Mubarak. And with the activists standing loosely allied, and beholden to no single political party, the message itself, of equality and fairness, cannot be easily subverted or subsumed into a short term election agenda. This message will endure, no matter the outcome of the US elections, no matter who is president and who controls Congress. And ultimately, one hopes, a more equitable world will emerge, as it did back in the 1930s through the New Deal.