Skin in the Game

What do you think is worth going to war over? What would you consider a good enough reason to send dozens, or hundreds, or thousands of American servicemen and servicewomen into battle in a faraway land, knowing for sure that a decent percentage of them will come home either with psychological trauma, lifelong physical injuries, or in a flag-draped coffin?

In the last 72 hours or so, I've been seeing a lot of discussion among foreign policy elites about the usefulness of America's airstrikes in Syria in terms of how the strikes benefit American interests.  I've seen some say the strikes have no benefit at all, while others say they they were absolutely necessary; but one thing that many elites seem to agree on is that an overseas military intervention, under the right circumstances, in the name of American interests is perfectly acceptable.

"American interests." Those two words tend to set my teeth on edge.  I'll explain why later, but for right now, I want to briefly discuss American interests as they relate to the strikes in Syria.


First, let's figure out what American interests are. I pulled this bulleted list from former President Obama's 2010 National Security Strategy, because who better to articulate the country's interests than its president? (In case you're wondering why I used Obama's NSS instead of Trump's, it's because Obama's had a neat, reader-friendly list and Trump's did not; and I wasn't going to read all sixty-eight pages for this.) According to Obama's NSS, America's interests are as follows:

• The security of the United States, its citizens, and US allies and partners;
• A strong, innovative, and growing US economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity;
• Respect for universal values at home and around the world; and
• An international order advanced by US leadership that promotes peace, security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges.

Do the strikes in Syria seem beneficial when you weigh them against the four items on this list of interests? The strikes were a response to Assad's use of chemical weapons on his own citizens - a purely domestic action - so while the chemical attacks were undeniably horrific, there's nothing about them that threatens any other nation.  One could make an argument that the Syrian refugee crisis threatens America's interests, but this recent chemical attack does not, in my opinion.

Now that I've talked about the strikes in Syria, let's circle back to why the term "American interests" irks me.

America's interests, as defined by the Obama NSS, are so broad that they can be (and have been) used to justify US involvement just about anywhere in the world.  An ally's neighbor threatens them militarily? Access to a vital natural resource is at risk? A humanitarian crisis, whether man-made or due to natural causes, is ongoing somewhere? Send in American troops to resolve the situation. Lebanon, Somalia, Bosnia, South Korea, Iraq, and so on...the cost in terms of Americans' and locals' lives, not to mention the enormous price tag, has never seemed worth the benefit to me.

Now, I'm not naive enough to think these military interventions provide no benefits at all.  The American economy needs all sorts of goods from other nations to keep running: raw materials, electronic components, food, industrial chemicals, etc. Consumers need the goods created from these items, and companies need the steady flow of these goods to not be jeopardized, which means the United States has a stake in keeping the countries that provide these materials stable: no costly wars or civil unrest.  Sometimes ensuring that country's stability requires us to do unpleasant things such as propping up a despot or intervene in a conflict that doesn't appear to concern us.  That's the reality of the global economy, and it's not going away any time soon.  It's also a fact of human history: wars are often fought over access to resources.

I recognize the unpleasant truth, and I see the inevitability of it.  Doesn't mean I have to like it, though.  Sending our troops to fight an adversary that doesn't present a clear, immediate threat to the country seems immoral to me.

But maybe I'm just out of step.

The Militaristic Undercurrent of American Discourse

"You'll be sorry you messed with the US of A - 'cause we'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way." - Toby Keith, Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue (2002)

There was an old story I remember hearing once or twice back during my days as an intelligence analyst, about how the Soviet Union responded when four of its diplomats were kidnapped in the mid-1980s.  The Lebanese militia called Hezbollah kidnapped the diplomats to get the Soviets to put pressure on Syria, which was making life hard for Hezbollah at the time.  Well, this didn't sit well with the Soviet Union, and it responded rather uniquely.  The legend goes that the KGB tracked down a key Hezbollah leader's relative, castrated him and sent his testicles to the Hezbollah leader, then shot him (the relative) in the head.  The KGB then guaranteed Hezbollah that it would treat the militia members' in a similar fashion if the Soviet diplomats weren't released immediately.  This evidently was enough to convince Hezbollah to free the Soviet hostages.  Now, the part about Hezbollah kidnapping four Soviet diplomats is true, but the rest sounds like an urban legend.  Although, the KGB has never shied away from these types of brutal tactics, which makes this story at least a bit plausible.

So why did I bring up that story? Because it's indicative of an undercurrent of militarism undercurrent running through American society.  The story usually came up after the US had suffered an attack on its interests, such as the kidnapping of a US citizen or terrorist attack against an overseas US installation, and it often ended with a statement along the lines of "Those Russians didn't fuck around, and nobody messed with them.  Maybe if we [the US] were more like that. . ." It reflects a desire for America to be tougher, more ruthless, less restrained in the use of force.  A mindset that thinks force is the first and best solution to solving a conflict.  And it's not limited to overseas issues such as hostile nations or international terrorism:

Dealing drugs? Harsh punishments and long jail terms.

Rogue state saber-rattling? Bomb the shit out of 'em.

Civil disobedience? Make it legal to run protestors over.

You kind of see it in a lot of places if you think to look for it; hell, you see it all over the place even without looking for it.  You see it in social media posts and news article comments in the aftermath of a terrorist incident ("Let's round all those people up and throw them in camps! They ain't got no rights!") or when a hostile nation does some saber-rattling ("We should just turn that country into glass.") And, of course, you see it on the campaign trail, when politicians )who have usually never spent a day in uniform) try to outdo each other with their "tough guy" talk (for example, here's Ted Cruz in 2015, boasting that he'll "carpet bomb" ISIS if he becomes president.)

And, to nobody's surprise, we see this militaristic attitude emanate from the White House frighteningly often.  We saw it on the campaign trail.  We saw it in the belligerent rhetoric toward North Korea.  We saw it in the decision to drop the MOAB on an insurgent stronghold in Afghanistan.  And most recently, we saw it while watching a video of a drone strike, Trump showed he had no qualms with killing the target's family in the strike.

"Watching a previously recorded strike in which the agency held off on firing until the target had wandered away from a house with his family inside, Trump asked, “Why did you wait?” one participant in the meeting recalled." (Washington Post)

Let's try a thought experiment and imagine that Trump's stance becomes military doctrine.  Would it be effective? That is, would it help the military achieve its objectives? Research shows that, at least in Afghanistan, the answer is no.  I suspect that the answer would be the same for Iraq, for Syria, and for any of the other places that the United States is engaged in counterterrorism operations - because common sense tells you that people who get hit want to hit back.  History is full of cases where people fought back hard against their persecutors.  Despite being outnumbered and outgunned.  Despite whatever unimaginable atrocities a Goliath-like military can inflict upon them.  The Eastern Front, World War II.  Gaza, now.  Afghanistan, the 1980s.  I think it's safe to say that Trump's tactics would not only be unhelpful, they would be counterproductive.

And in case you're thinking that upping the brutality high enough will eventually lead to victory - it's probably been tried already.  Crop destruction, land mines, torture, destroying entire villages - all of these things have been used in the past, and none of them helped achieve victory.  Further, some countries have been more brutal than the United States could ever imagine being, yet they couldn't brutalize their way to victory.  And even if they had been successful, is that the kind of behavior we want to copy?

If it seems like I'm worried about this out of some softhearted concern for ISIS or the Taliban or whoever, rest assured, I'm not.  Do the names John Walker Lindh, Jose Padilla, or Anwar al-Awlaki ring any bells? Lindh was a US citizen captured in Afghanistan and convicted of fighting against US forces; Padilla was a US citizen convicted of aiding terrorists; and Awlaki was the leader of an anti-US terrorist cell in Yemen.  Awlaki was killed by a Hellfire missile, while Padilla and Lindh are still serving prison sentences.  I don't particularly care what happens to them, or to any other US citizen who takes up arms against his or her own countrymen; if they happen to be in a great deal of agonizing pain before they die, I don't feel any sympathy.

What I do care about is what the way we treat these individuals says about our country and its values. There's a giant difference between sympathizing with the country's enemies and raising objections about our conduct toward those enemies.  Let's take torture: the intentional inflicting of suffering and physical harm on someone who doesn't pose any threat, and which produces questionable results.  What does it look like when a country - any country - endorses torture as an acceptable and effective method? Especially a country that prides itself on being "the land of the free" and a "beacon of democracy." The president recently nominated a CIA agent who supervised a black site where torture was routine to lead the Agency; that's not a good look for a country that has played a major role in capturing and prosecuting perpetrators of war crimes over the past several decades.  And it's not just torture; our country should be moving away from things like "preemptive" wars of choice and indiscriminate killing, yet our current head of state is okay with it. And around 40% of the citizenry are okay with him.

Ask yourselves: is a country that has a "might makes right" approach to conflict resolution the kind of country you want to live in?

Trump's Ongoing War on the Freedom of the Press

So it's been a while since my last post.  I never meant to let it lapse for this long, but sometimes things come up and you know how life goes.  Anyway. . .

There's a video circulating around showing how the news anchors for many Sinclair Broadcast Group outlets regurgitating a nearly-identical news piece.  Somebody took the time to splice a bunch of clips together, and that's the video that's been making the internet rounds.  (Or one of many videos.  I think there could be a few different ones.) Go watch this video here - it's disturbing as hell.

Imagine if you could only get your news from one source.  Even if you agreed with that source, it still presents a lot of problems. For one, you're getting all your information filtered through the outlet's preferences: the stories it deems important, the ideological slant it wants to put on it, the bits of data it chooses to emphasize or downplay, and so on.  Information is vital to a democracy: people need it to make informed decisions at the ballot box, among other things.  If one company, or a handful of companies, control a huge number of news agencies, how do you think those news sites will cover a political candidate that the company favors? Do you think voters will get a complete picture of that candidate, or will they only hear about the good stuff?

Which brings us to Donald Trump.  The Sinclair Group's "newscast" I linked to centered on the problem of "biased and false news" being shared on social media.  Now, that was a newsworthy story, so what's the big deal, right? Well, it's a big deal because this is the full script, courtesy of CNN:

"I'm [we are] extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that [name of local station] produces. But I'm [we are] concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories plaguing our country.  The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media," the script says. "More alarming, national media outlets are publishing these same fake stories without checking facts first. Unfortunately, some members of the national media are using their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control 'exactly what people think' ... This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. I [we] understand truth is neither politically 'left or right.' Our commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility, now more than ever."

Do you see how the news anchors try to convince you that their news affiliate is the only trustworthy source of news? Like how Fox News uses the slogan "Fair and Balanced" when it is anything but that.  Also, the script's wording, specifically its use of the term "biased and false news", reminds you of a certain President's catch phrase, doesn't it? I doubt that's a coincidence, since the Sinclair Group is in the middle of some business dealings that Trump Administration officials are overseeing.

Obviously, the Sinclair Group executives are doing this to get on Trump's good side. Unfortunately, this is taking place at the same time while a steady flow of damning information is coming out about Trump's obstruction of justice, his ties to the Russian government, and his cabinet's unethical and possibly illegal actions.  What would happen if a number of local news stations began undercutting the Mueller investigation, peddling the "deep state" conspiracy nonsense, or distracting their viewers with whataboutism? Fox News and the right-wing media still get a lot of traction among their viewers with their fawning, pro-Trump coverage; if these outlets started parroting that message, it adds fuel to the fire.  On top of that, Trump's position to influence the Sinclair deals gives him a measure of control over the company.  We're already seeing that influence how the company operates, and the deals are still in progress.  If the Trump Administration decides in Sinclair's favor, it will be beholden to him and his cronies for as long as they serve in office.

This would effectively mean that Trump's attacks on the press are moving beyond his "brain vomit" Tweets, and could potentially be disseminated by news agencies with actual credibility, not just a BS-spewing network like Fox.  Trump's attacks on the so-called "fake news" were never in jest.  He means it when he says he wants to make them register, or censor them.  He wants to control the media and its message, and thanks to the Sinclair Group's ass-kissing, Trump could soon have an effective tool to help him with that.  That should terrify you.  It terrifies me.