South Dakota Politics

Religious Persecution

My latest in the Pierre Capital Journal.  A taste:

In Nairobi, Kenya, Muslim gunmen assaulted a shopping mall, killing at least 62 people. Reportedly they asked hostages to profess faith in Islam. Those who agreed were set free. Others were not so lucky.

In Peshawar, Pakistan, Islamic suicide bombers killed 82 persons outside a Christian church. Bombers waded into the congregation as it dispersed after service, exploding themselves within the throng of approximately 500.

In Abuja, Nigeria, recently 160 were killed in a weeklong anti-Christian string of violence by Islamic radicals. The main group involved is called Boko Haram, which apparently believes “western education is a sin” and demands all Christians leave northern Nigeria as it tries to set up a new Islamic state.

Some may be aware that Christians are being targeted in both Egypt and Syria by Islamic radicals. In both cases their tactics seem to be a combination of an attempt to incite an overreaction on behalf of official authorities and attempts to purge all vestiges of Christianity.

Does intervening in Syria meet criteria for a just war? Maybe not (Updated)

Latest in the Pierre Capital Journal:

In the run-up to potential war with Syria, it may be useful to review the basic precepts of the classic teaching known as “Just War Theory.”

While this theory has been amended over the centuries, the basic criteria are clear. First, every war must have a just cause. This is usually defined as some sort of aggression, but there are exceptions. Most modern just war theorists, for instance, would agree that a state can intervene to prevent a genocide or perhaps balance a conflict in which a third party has already intervened.

War must be made by the proper authority. Essentially this means that war is made by sovereign states, not by private parties.

War must also be waged with the right intention. In the words of St. Augustine, war should restore the “tranquility of order” and not be for selfish gain.

Fourth, a just war must have a reasonable chance of success. Also, a war must be a proportional response to evil, meaning that it should not produce an evil greater than the one it fights.

Finally, war must only be a last resort. Naturally, there is always something else other than war that could be done. What we mean here is that at some point that “something else” just delays or denies the inevitable.

Just War Theory should not be looked at as a checklist, but rather as a guide to prudent statesmen and citizens as they consider the justice of an act.

In my opinion, the proposed war in Syria meets most of these tests, but fails others.

Read the whole thing.

Update: In the comments, Larry Kurtz says: "US forces rained white phosphorus on Fallujah killing and maiming children: how just is that, Professor?"

Larry's statement confuses jus ad bellum with jus in bell0, or justice of war and justice in war (see here for further discussion).  These are two different concepts.  The first, which I discussed in the article, considers whether it is just to enter into war.  The second, which Larry's statement alludes to, is whether a war is fought justly.  Conceivably, an unjust war can be fought in a just manner, or a just war fought unjustly (no one denies, for example, that American forces in WWII, a just war, sometimes acted unjustly).  Regarding the direct example, the jus in bell0 concept is called "double effect."  In JWT, it is wrong to target noncombatants.  But, if one has a justified target one may strike it even if noncombatants are killed.  It's just that the primary aim may not be to kill noncombatants.  Thus we say the strike has a "double effect," one just (say, destroying a weapons factory) and the other not (killing the noncombatants who work there).  Still, the weapons factory is a legitimate military target and if the aim is simply to reduce the enemy's military strength and NOT to target noncombatants the strike is just.  It is unjust to target non-combatants specifically.  If the white phosphorous was used against a legitimate target, it may (may!) have been just.  If the aim of the attack was to kill/maim the children, it was unjust.  Relevant information on the use of white phosphorous in Iraq can be found here and here. 

The Unbelievably Small Presidency

One of my favorite political scientists recently said to me that Obama might come out of the Syria debacle “smelling like Christmas”.  I have my doubts.  It is true, I think, that (courtesy of the Russians) the Administration now has a way out of the fine mess it has gotten itself into.  From the LA Times:

WASHINGTON – White House officials say they will “take a hard look” at a Russian offer to push Syria to give up its vast chemical weapons arsenal, a late and unexpected proposal that could provide President Obama a way to avoid a bruising defeat in Congress over use of force…

Kerry said at a news conference in London that Syrian President Bashar Assad could forestall a U.S. attack by giving up his sizable stockpile of chemical weapons immediately. Although the State Department quickly sought to squelch Kerry’s comments as “rhetoric,” not a serious proposal, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov quickly offered to push Assad to agree.

In such a deal, apparently, Assad would turn over his stockpile of chemical weapons to someone, perhaps the Russians.  In return, he would be given a pass on the more than a thousand people he has, apparently, murdered with them.  If Assad really does give up his stockpile, that would be a significant achievement.  If he even pretends to do so (for how can we verify what Assad actually has and where he has it?) the Administration could then claim that it was only its tough stance that brought the settlement about. 

It seems pretty clear that this offer came out of the blue.  Up until now, no one in the Administration seemed to suggest that Assad could do anything to avoid his deserved punishment.  When Secretary of State Kerry mentioned the offer, his staff immediately tried to walk it back.  Kerry also said that the strike the Administration was proposing would be “unbelievably small,” which doesn’t really make their position more compelling. 

Still, it is difficult to think that the Administration would be so foolish as to reject the offer, given the situation that they are in now.  They should promptly take it, avoid the vote in Congress, resolve never to mention Syria again, and put duct tape over Kerry’s mouth. 

While this might get Mr. Obama out of his dilemma, I don’t think it would come near to undoing the damage he has done to himself.  The President has gone to bat for an amorphous policy generated, ad hoc, at the eleventh hour.  In short order he has secured returns of no confidence from the U.N., the G20 Conference, our British allies, and the Pope.  Authorization of a military strike by the U.S. Senate is still not a sure thing and a vote in the House looks hopeless.  If his media blitz over the weekend has not actually been counterproductive, its benefits seem to be all too believably small. 

Meanwhile, there is popular opinion in America.  Polling shows that Americans oppose a strike in Syria by two to one margins.  The President’s approval rates have descended into the Dubya-digit nether regions.  Somewhere between 40 and 45% approve of his job performance, while 48-55% disapprove. 

If the President does work out a deal, he will come out of this in better shape than if he launches an unbelievably small strike without Congressional approval or any coalition partners outside Albania or worse, backs away without doing anything.  I am pretty sure that the aroma of this incident will still stick to the President and that it would smell like Frankincense and Myrrh.  

ps.  The Washington Post is very disturbed by the news of this possible "breakthrough" in diplomacy, as the President is now calling the Kerry/Russian deal.  They note, correctly, that Assad has used such gambits in the past to avoid international interference and always goes back on the deal.  That, of course, is what he will do this time if Mr. Obama backs off. 

There’s only one reason an initiative on chemical weapons might turn out differently: a credible threat of military action by the United States. That makes Congress’s vote on a resolution authorizing force all the more important. If the resolution is approved, the administration will have leverage to push through the Russian proposal. If one or both houses of Congress reject the authorization, the Assad regime can be expected to find a way to reject the deal or dodge compliance indefinitely.

Yes, but it works both ways.  If it looks like Obama is using the Syrian deal as an escape clause, he will be less likely to get Congressional backing.  It does, doesn't it?

Defending Obama on the "Red Line"

President Obama received a lot of grief over the following remark, which was part of a response to a question from Steve Holland of Reuters.

First of all, I didn't set a red line.

Conservatives were quick to pounce of that, pointing out (frequently supported by a video clip) that Mr. Obama certainly did set a red line against the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime.  The critical line was that Mr. Obama was trying to weasel out of responsibility for his own words; however, even his defenders on the left seem mostly to concede that he was contradicting himself. 

Unaccustomed as I am to defending the President, I must point out that he was making a perfectly reasonable point.  Here is the rest of his remark.

The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous thing that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for. And so, when I said, in a press conference, that my calculus about what's happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn't something I just kind of made up. I didn't pluck it out of thin air. There was a reason for it. That's point number one. Point number two, my credibility is not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line. And America and Congress' credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.

The President wasn’t denying that he endorsed the red line.  He was saying that it didn’t originate with him; it was already set by the international community and by Congress.  All he did was acknowledge it and announce his intent to back it up.  That was a reasonable point and the President should have gotten credit for trying to hold the world and Congress to account. 

Unfortunately, he miffed it with those opening words that did seem to deny the obvious.  He also made a grievous mistake by denying that his own credibility was on the line.  It is blatantly obvious that his credibility is on the line.  Denying it is an unforced error. 

Mr. Obama is great at reading prepared speeches and terrible at responding off the cuff.  That is why his staff rarely lets him hold a press conference.  He is hardly unintelligent or (as G.W. Bush was) inarticulate.  He just won’t do his homework.  He had every reason to know that that question was coming and time enough to prepare for it.  Yet he was obviously unprepared and it cost him. 

Be skeptical of much of what passes for “reality” entertainment

My latest in the Pierre Capital Journal.  A taste:

I recently came across a web ad that made me do something I rarely do, namely look at a web ad. It was for a Discovery Channel show called “Amish Mafia.” I hit the link to see a preview of the show. As I watched the video I couldn’t help but think, “There is no way this is true.” A brief internet search showed that, sadly, “Amish Mafia” is a largely a charade.

Wise television and documentary viewers should be skeptical about much of what passes as “reality” entertainment. There are at least three reasons why this is the case.

The President's Plight on Syria

A colleague of mine had a bumper sticker on his Prius that read “War Is Not The Answer.”  One day I popped my head in his office door and asked: “Can you think of a three letter word for armed conflict?”  He blurted out the obvious.  “See,” I replied, “sometimes war is the answer.” 

President Obama seems to think that war is the answer if the question is what to do now that the Syrian regime crossed his red line and murdered hundreds of innocent people with chemical weapons.  The trouble is that we have very little idea of what the President is really proposing or how he understands the question. 

The most sensible policy statement that the President could make would go something like this.  Chemical weapons are more terrible than conventional weapons, especially for civilians.  We want to prohibit their use by regimes such as Assad’s and the only way to do that is impose a prohibitive cost on the regime. 

That raises as many questions as it answers.  To begin with, who are “we”?  Not the United Nations.  Russia and China will never go along.  Not the U.S. and its most steadfast ally, Britain.  PM David Cameron asked Parliament to endorse military action and Parliament handed him his head.  Rest assured that the French are still on board.  The Administration has decided, apparently, to ask Congress to authorize a military strike.  They are making a full court press on that front right now.  Unfortunately, the American people are more opposed to such an action than they have been to anything like it in the past.  With an election little more than a year away, how many members of his own party will be there to back him up? 

Another question is this.  What kind of military strike will be sufficient to make Bashar al-Assad really, truly, sorry?  More to the point, what kind of strike will strike fear into the hearts of other cutthroats around the globe who might be sitting on their own chemical stockpiles?  The President has three basic choices.  He could attempt to do what he did in Libya: decapitate the regime.  Or he could destroy Syrian airpower, which is the one thing that is keeping Assad’s regime ahead of the rebels.  Either would mean a rebel victory and, with thousands of al Qaeda fighters in Syria, that means rolling a very scary set of bones.  Finally, he could just lob a few tomahawk missiles at a few targets, announced well in advance.  That would make Obama feel better about himself, but it would also demonstrate that the red line against the use of chemical weapons is like the speed limit in Western Texas: just a suggestion. 

It’s not clear what policy the Administration should pursue in Syria.  It is abundantly clear that the Administration has spent a year without bothering much to formulate a policy.  Secretary of State Clinton said that Assad must go back when it looked like Assad was going without any trouble on our part.  That’s putting a wishbone where your backbone ought to be.  There is no evidence that Mr. Obama and his team had any idea what to do to make those words meaningful or that they tried to figure it out. 

Then Mr. Obama famously said that any use of chemical weapons would cross a red line.  That’s the kind of thing you want to say after you’ve got your allies behind you and you’ve assembled a coalition in both houses of Congress.  Or at the very least, you want to start building your coalitions immediately afterward.  Instead, Mr. Obama waited until the line had actually been crossed to finally start doing his job. 

Obama’s critics frequently compare him to the unfortunate Jimmy Carter.  That is unfair.  To Carter.  President Carter’s foreign policy was based on naïve assumptions about the motives of our enemies and it was so weak that he failed to respond adequately when an American embassy was occupied by a hostile power.  He did at least have policies and he worked very hard to formulate and implement them.  Now, at the eleventh hour, we still have no idea what Mr. Obama’s Syria policy is and as far as one can tell neither does he. 

Perhaps the most telling item in this story comes from The Politico. 

Sunday, administration officials made the case to lawmakers that rejecting Obama’s war resolution would stain his credibility on the international stage.

That is no doubt true.  It is also pathetic.  He wants Congress to make an honest man out of him.  Is it really within the powers of Congress to do this?  Can they restore the President’s credibility when he has frittered it away with a year of dithering and missing in action leadership? 

A Note to Readers

I have been posting four or five times a month.  I do miss the days when Donald Pay and A.I. and Bill Fleming and Larry Kurtz were on my butt nearly every day.  Lately, however, this blog has been subject to a relentless spam attack.  I bowed to the inevitable and have instituted one of those annoying verification barriers.  I hate them and I say that there is a special place in Hell for spammers. 

I do wish the above to know (assuming they ever look at this blog anymore) that I have never intentionally deleted any of their comments.