Another Obama Foreign Policy Miss

The ongoing dustup between Iran and Saudi Arabia over the Saudi execution of a Shiite cleric (Nimr al-Nimr) and three other Shiites reflects another foreign policy foul up by the Obama administration.  Instead of tamping down sectarian tensions in the Middle East, the Obama administration (and its predecessor, the George W. Bush administration) made it easier for conflict to flare up.  A "democratically elected" government was established in Baghdad which, not surprisingly was Shiite dominated because Iraq is majority Shiite.  But adequate protection for the interests of Iraqi Sunnis, Kurds and other ethnic or religious groups wasn't ensured.  So Iraq degenerated into sectarian warfare, with the Sunni-dominated ISIS readily able to seize vast amounts of Sunni Iraq without facing much of a fight.  For the same reasons, it's been impossible to organize a military force in Iraq that can dislodge ISIS, except at the margins.

The Obama administration stood by the sidelines as Syria descended into civil warfare, without having a discernible, let alone coherent, policy.  The only line in the sand drawn by President Obama was to warn Bashar Assad against using poisonous gas, and when Assad did just that, Obama flinched.  His flinch paved the way for Vladimir Putin to start mucking around in Syria, a role that Putin has now expanded to a much larger military commitment to Assad.  Iran has been supporting Assad, because he is a member of the Alawites, a religious group affiliated with the Shiites.  So we have Russia and Iran working against the Saudis and their allies, who have been supporting Sunni interests in Syria.  The war in Syria is now firmly sectarian.  The ideals of the Arab Spring died a hard death there.

In Yemen, Shiite rebels have booted the Sunni ruler, and Iran is supporting the Shiite side of a civil war against the Saudi-supported Sunni side.  The U.S. used to have a Special Forces presence in Yemen, but those troops reportedly have left the country.  So we have in Yemen a second proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The Obama administration has been trying to sell the nuclear accord with Iran as a great diplomatic achievement.  But the Saudis are nervous about the agreement, apparently believing that it doesn't truly restrain Iranian nuclear ambitions.  So, even while Obama thinks he's getting somewhere with Iran, he's losing influence over the Saudis.  It shouldn't be a surprise that the Saudis are getting feistier.  They evidently don't believe they can count on the U.S.  One would think that the U.S. might have restrained the Saudis from executing Nimr al-Nimr.  But either the administration didn't know the execution was scheduled (which would seem an intelligence failure) or it didn't understand the importance of the execution to the Iranians (which would seem an intelligence analysis failure). 

At the same time, the nuclear accord appears to have emboldened the Iranians.  They fired missiles from a ship that was hardly a mile away from an American aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.  They've announced they'll increase their ballistic missile capabilities, apparently in violation of a UN resolution.  But neither action generated a response from the U.S. other than commentary by official spokespersons along the lines of "naughty, naughty." 

The President reportedly is holding back on sanctions against Iran because he wants to implement the nuclear accord and strengthen the hand of Irans moderates.  The problem is we don't really know who is in control of Iran (another intelligence failure).  Implementing the accord means rolling back sanctions and allowing Iran to sell more oil internationally and otherwise engage in more international trade.  This will increase Iran's financial strength.  Who really controls that strength--Iranian moderates, Iranian radicals or Iranian terrorists?  No wonder the Saudis think they may have to go their own way.  If Obama is, in effect, going to strengthen Iran, the Saudis have to find ways to push back.

President Obama is dead set on avoiding conflict.  That much is clear to everyone.  Assad steps across his line in the sand and he does nothing.  Iran engages in provocative behavior after the nuclear accord, and he does nothing.  Putin has Russian jets bomb American-supported moderate rebels in Syria and Obama does nothing.  While almost no one in America wants our ground troops back in the Middle East, it's clear that the administration's policies are heightening sectarian tensions in the Middle East.   Just as the Obama administration was unduly focused on al-Qaeda until ISIS literally blasted its way into the administration's consciousness, it's now too obsessed with combating ISIS and not focused enough on the root problem of reducing sectarian tension.

The Middle East could degenerate into regionwide sectarian warfare in a flash--indeed, it's already partly there.  ISIS has been able to hold large amounts of territory only because sectarian tensions have been allowed to flare up.  It's important now to try to get the Iranians and Saudis to stand down.  The more Obama appeases Iran, the more provocative Iran becomes.  The recent Iranian Persian Gulf missile firing and ballistic missile program boost should be met with sanctions and a delay in the implementation of the nuclear accord.  The Iranians need to be firmly told that if they want to be re-admitted to international society, they have to be good citizens.  At the same time, the U.S. should quietly reassure the Saudis that it stands with them, and that they need to cool their jets.  Saudi arms should be twisted if necessary.  In other words, Obama has to stop appeasing and get tough with the toughs in the Middle East.

If the U.S. can lower sectarian animosity in the Middle East, it may be able to put together a working alliance to defeat and eventually destroy ISIS.  But if sectarian tensions keep increasing, there will be no workable solution for dealing with ISIS, and more conflict will likely erupt, further eroding American interests and influence.  ISIS could survive and perhaps even prosper.  It seems unlikely, however, that Obama, now firmly ensconced in his Ivy League populated bubble, will somehow connect with the realities of foreign relations.  That's a shame, because it means that he, like George W. Bush before him, will leave a foreign policy mess for his successor.

Everyone's a Loser in Syria

With Russia's entry into the bag of dog doo that is Syria, the chattering classes are all astir over who's up, who's down, who's winning and who's losing.  Russia is the usual nominee for winner.  But what exactly has Russia won?  It can't win the war.  Between ISIS, the Kurds and various other rebel groups, most of Syria is no longer in the hands of the Assad regime.  Russia can't afford to commit the tens of thousands of ground troops, equipment and air power that would be needed to retake and hold all this ground, and the Assad regime's army appears too depleted to mount the major offensives that would be needed.  All Russia can do is prop up an Assad rump regime in western Syria that would be under constant attack.  That would mean an indefinite commitment to a war with no end in sight and no possibility of a Russian victory.  

Russia's puppet in Syria, Bashar al-Assad, isn't a winner; he has only avoided becoming a big loser.  His diminished army can't reconquer what he's lost in Syria.  Russian air strikes will allow him to bolster his lines and tighten up his defenses.  But a few dozen Russian air craft don't begin to provide enough air power to support an offensive that could retake all of Syria.  At the same time, Assad's authority is diminished.  Now, he will have to do whatever Putin tells him to do, and like it, as well.

The Iranians, who apparently negotiated an alliance of sorts with Russia, have had their weakness revealed.  For all their bluster and unacknowledged efforts to build nuclear weapons, they don't have the strength to prop up a two-bit dictator in a small nation.  They had to call in first, their Hezbollah allies, and then Russia.  Maybe the Iranians are claiming a propaganda victory.  But they just ceded power to Vlad the Invader, and it's generally a bad idea to give power to an aggressive despot.  Has the Islamic Iranian government forgotten that one reason Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi allied himself so closely with the United States was because the Russians wanted to take over Iran after World War II?

The Shiite dominated government of Iraq has cozied up to Russia and allowed Russian military planes to fly over Iraqi air space in order to reach Syria. Maybe it had no choice; its Iranian handlers could have told it to cuddle up to Putin.  But, reality is you can't be an ally of America and an ally of Russia.  If the Iraqis snuggle up to Putin too much, America may not provide as much military equipment or intelligence to Iraq as it once did.  It may see less value in supporting a Shiite government in Baghdad and perhaps more value in supporting the Kurds.

The Sunni rebel groups--ranging from ISIS to the various metastasizes of al Qaeda to the tiny and shrinking handful of moderate rebels supported by the United States--are ships out of luck.  They can't win, not with Russian military assets located in and protecting western Syria.  They will be battered by Russian air power, and will have to hunker down.

Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies have quietly been supporting various of Assad's opponents, hoping to unseat him and install a Sunni-friendly government.  That ain't happening now, not with Russian soldiers in Latakia.

The Kurds have enjoyed notable success in Syria, carving out safe havens for themselves and others who aren't Sunni or Shiite crazies.  But Russian air power will likely preclude further Kurdish gains.  The Kurds will have to concentrate on holding what they have.

Turkey has been fighting Russia for centuries.  Now, with Russian military aircraft in Syria, the Russians just flanked Turkey and can hit it from two sides.  Not that Putin has expressed any unfriendly intentions toward Turkey, but given the centuries of war between these two nations, nothing needs to be said.

Israel has been fighting various Russian allies almost since its inception.  Never, however, have Russian military assets been so closely positioned to Israel.  Had Iran been so brazen as to station military aircraft in Latakia, Israel's more advanced air force would have swarmed in the next morning before dawn and walloped the warm living yogurt out of the Iranians.  But Israel cannot attack Russian forces.  It can only watch, and hope that Syria proves to be a hopeless morass for Russia.

And last, but not least, the United States has seen its modest influence in Syria diminish even more.  By propping up Assad, Putin precludes any possibility of an American victory.  Not that it matters since, at this point, America isn't even really engaged in Syria.  The Obama administration issues a steady stream of press releases about Syria, but it's doing little more than talking. Since it's not engaged in Syria, it doesn't have the leverage to get the Russians out.  Hopes that Russia will join hands with the U.S. in attacking ISIS are delusional.  ISIS has weakened America's position in the Middle East.  Why would Putin want to weaken ISIS, which is doing the dirty work for him?  All he needs to do is prop up Assad, his puppet in Syria, while ISIS and America batter away at each other, neither able to conclusively defeat the other.

In the end, the absence of anyone strong enough to impose peace and order in Syria means that the country will be de facto partitioned.  That's what happened to Yugoslavia.  It's what's happening now in Iraq.  The flood of refugees into Europe will continue.  The truth is everyone is a loser in Syria.

Partition Iraq

Joe Biden, while a Senator, got it right.  Iraq should be partitioned.  Not that prescriptive advice like this really matters any more because the partitioning has already happened and there really isn't any way to undo it.

ISIS, the Sunni extremists, already control northwestern Iraq, along with a good chunk of northeastern Syria.  No one will be able to dislodge them.  The Iraqi government's army is too busy surrendering territory and weapons to retake lost ground.  The Assad regime in Syria no longer has the ability to defeat a force as powerful as ISIS.  And the U.S. isn't sending in ground troops, without which you can't take or hold territory.

The Kurds have carved out a homeland for themselves, anchored by the city of Kirkuk, and they won't give it up, not after centuries of subjugation.  Certainly, the Iraqi army can't retake the Kurdish territory, and the Kurdish paramilitary Pesh Merga appears more formidable than ISIS. 

The Shiites in Iraq hold the southern and southeastern portions of the country, which contains most of Iraq's oil wealth.  Why fight for the less valuable land farther north when they already hold the jackpot?

Trying to keep Iraq together is guaranteed to produce unmanageable friction and endless warfare.  The Iranians now have their claws into the Baghdad government, and won't give that up.  America's Sunni allies on the Arabian Peninsula--Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc.--have many secret supporters of ISIS, who will be royally p.o.'d if the Shiite government in Baghdad is able, with American assistance, to repress Sunni tribes in Iraq.  The Kurds have quietly allied themselves with Israel and sometimes with America, and pissing them off could weaken America's influence in the region.

America's power in the region might increase if Iraq were partitioned.  Even though once betrayed by the CIA, the Kurds would still ally themselves with the U.S., and offer American personnel a centrally located place from which to operate.  The Shiite Baghdad government might want to maintain friendly ties with America in order to counterbalance the Iranians.  Yes, the Baghdad government has cozied up to Iran.  But the Iranians are Persian, and the people in Baghdad are Arabs.  Iraq and Iran fought a bitter war with over a million dead in the 1980s, and the Baghdad government won't want its territory to become a province of a new Persian empire.

As for the Sunni area now controlled by ISIS, the U.S. could do what it did during the 2007 surge:  buy off the indigenous Iraqi Sunni tribes.  That's how the U.S. defeated al-Qaeda once before, and it's a way to undermine ISIS now.  The whack jobs that control ISIS impose an extremely harsh form of Islam--even al-Qaeda gave ISIS the boot because it thought ISIS unduly brutal (imagine that!).  The indigenous Sunni tribes in Iraq tend toward moderation, and won't be happy with the beheadings, stonings, non-medical amputations, and other barbarism that ISIS will inflict.  It's a safe assumption that U.S. Special Forces personnel and CIA agents have already started slipping into ISIS controlled areas.  Money talks, and thoughtfully large sums of money placed in the hands of the right Sunni chieftains might well lead to an ousting of ISIS.  The Sunnis might well want to carve out their own independent state, and the U.S. shouldn't get in the way.  A stable, moderate Sunni state in northern Iraq is far less likely than an ISIS caliphate to serve as an incubator of Islamic extremists who would target the U.S.  Especially if American aid flows generously to such a nation.  And America's allies in the Arabian peninsula might look favorably upon such a sanctuary for their religious brethren.

Partitioning has flaws, but not as many as the alternatives.  Yugoslavia no longer exists, but its constituent parts have learned with assistance from NATO how to refrain from ethnic cleansing.  The borders of the Near East (Israel, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Syria and Egypt) are the result of partitioning.  Yes, there's a lot of tension and some low level warfare in the Near East.  But the utter chaos of today's Iraq isn't present.  And South Asia is functional, if not entirely peaceful.

Re-uniting Iraq will involve combat and civilian deaths, probably a lot of them.  All of America's elites, war hawks, chicken hawks, experts, pundits, and bombasts don't have an effective way to put Iraq back together again, not unless hundreds of thousands of American troops are reintroduced to re-fight the ground war.  And that ain't happening.  It's better to leverage the new status quo, which we can't change anyway, to our advantage. 

Barack Obama's Curious Redistribution Ideas

President Obama recently spoke critically of the gap between the rich and the poor.  He has endorsed an increase in the federal minimum wage, from $7.25 up to $10.10.  He has argued for stronger enforcement of the labor laws.  He seeks universal pre-school.

Predictably, Republicans stood in opposition.  More government spending isn't the answer, they contend.  Economic growth is the tide that will lift all boats, they say.

Republicans, whether they are right or wrong, have nothing to worry about.  Barack Obama, whatever he may say, isn't really serious about changing the distribution of income or wealth.  He favors reducing the cost of living adjustment for the Social Security, military and federal retirement benefits that tens of millions of Americans depend on.  Cutting back on retirement benefits worsens the distribution of income and wealth.

There were some federal tax increases that took effect this year.  But the income tax increase on high level earners was accompanied by an increase in Social Security taxes (which are regressive).  So what was the net effect?  Most likely, very little or no redistribution.

The Affordable Care Act would have a redistributive effect because of its health insurance subsidies for low income participants.  If only people could enroll  . . . .

Barack Obama has serious credibility issues.  He drew a line in the dust over the use of poison gas, and Assad stepped over it.  Obama squirmed, complained, and then let the Russians broker a deal.  He didn't have the management skills to implement his signature legislative achievement, the Affordable Care Act.  He negotiated some sort of deal on nukes with Iran, although that deal seems to have implementation issues as well.  As negotiators talk, Iran continues to enrich.  If you're looking for action from the White House on redistribution of income or wealth, don't hold your breath.  Keep saving and investing, because you're on your own.

A World of Foreign Policy Gambles

It is almost axiomatic that when a political leader faces domestic problems, he or she will turn to foreign relations as a way to divert disgruntled constituents from their daily travails.  Appeals to national pride easily tap into the often reflexive patriotism that many people have.  Folks tend to rally 'round the flag whenever there's a dustup with some bunch of dang foreigners.  Since foreign relations tend to be largely in the domain of Presidents, Prime Ministers and other national executives, legislative interference is less of a problem and credit for success can be hoarded.

With essentially all of the world's major economies unimpressive, sluggish or even tending toward torpid, it's hardly a surprise that some world leaders are indulging in cross-border shenani . . . , well, activities.  China has a slowing economy, with a real estate bubble, a debt bubble, increased competition from lower wage nations around the world, growing unemployment, a lack of high-value innovation, and a demographic demon of too many elderly and way too few young workers that's far, far worse than America's social security issues.  So what does China do?  Make noise about territorial claims in the East China Sea and South China Sea.  America responds by flying B-52s into an area claimed by the Chinese.  The Japanese, with a sludgy economy and a recently elected Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, who appears to be of a nationalistic bent, contest the Chinese claims with their military aircraft, sabre-rattling as good as they've been rattled at.  Japan and China are quietly drifting into an arms race, while the U.S. military is expanding its presence in Asia.  And of course, there's North Korea, an economic dead zone, which engages in virtually nonstop sabre-rattling to legitimize its autocracy. 

Meanwhile, in the Middle East, a newly elected Iranian leadership faced with a sanctions-hammered economy that's circling the drain, are suddenly open-minded about a deal to slow down their nuclear program.  An American President, crippled by the virtual non-launch of his showcase domestic health insurance program, decides it's okay to let Iran continue to enrich uranium up to the 5% level, even though this isn't exactly a complete freeze of Iran's nuclear program.  (Even though Iran says it wants to have 5% uranium to develop nuclear power, since when does a country with gobs of petroleum reserves need to develop nuclear power?)  This deal could be seen as an effort by the U.S. to reduce its presence in the Middle East (so it can increase its presence in Asia).  Does that make war in the Middle East less likely?  Or will the increasingly nervous Israelis act on their own, as they have in the past?  And if they do, will America be militarily dragged into the consequences?

Over the past century and a half, foreign policy adventurism has tended to end badly.  Sometimes, very badly, with 20 million dead in World War I and 60 million dead in World War II.  This isn't to suggest that America and other nations should become isolationist.  The world is interconnected and some degree of international engagement is necessary.  But citizens should be skeptical of their leaders, who often have much to gain by stepping up their rhetoric and actions.  The recent popular outcries against American and British military action in Syria over its use of poisonous gas is an example of how the levelheadedness of the citizenry can cool the jets of a handful of very powerful people who may spend too much time talking to each other.  If a nation's leader seems to have a gambling problem in the foreign policy arena, citizens should stage an intervention.

Are We Stuck With a Powerless Government?

Despite its image as an overbearing ogre, the federal government may be largely powerless these days.  The President has managed to undercut himself with an astonishingly bad non-launch of the federal health insurance exchange.  Is there anyone in his administration with executive or management ability?  Could anyone in his administration succeed as evening shift supervisor at the local McDonald's? 

On the foreign policy front, the President managed to set his foot downrange and pull the trigger over Syria's use of poison gas.  Only an embarrassing intervention by Russia prevented the President from a real morass of a morass.  Now, the administration touts a deal with Iran to freeze its nuclear program, even though it can continue to enrich uranium to the 5% level.  Not very frozen, but perhaps global warming is having an impact.  One wonders whether this deal with Iran is a sign of strength or weakness on the part of the President.

Meanwhile, over on Capitol Hill, Congress remains essentially non-functional.  The Democratically controlled Senate was able to approve the appointment of a few judges by changing its rules, although scowling Republicans made many dire and threatening predictions that the Dems would be sorry for doing this.  Nothing like a love fest to make folks feel collegial.  As for the federal budget and the debt ceiling, they aren't likely to trigger new crises, but will be resolved by kicking the can down the road.

The only institution that seems to be doing anything is the Federal Reserve.  And even it may be losing some of its mojo.  The most recently released minutes of the Open Market Committee meeting in October have been interpreted to mean that the Fed may be thinking about pulling back soon on quantitative easing.  Antacid sales on Wall Street have jumped.  If the efficacy of Fed money printing is diminishing, we may find ourselves in a public policy Sahara with very few water holes.

A powerful government can be scary.  A powerless one can be scarier.  The problem is this isn't a horror movie and we can't get up and leave the theater if we don't like the show.

One and Done in Syria, Right? Right? . . . Come on, right?

Once upon a time, there were some nasty guys known as al Qaeda.  In August 1998, they bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.  Over 200 people were killed, including 12 Americans.  In order punish the baddies, President Clinton order cruise missile attacks on al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan which supposedly made chemical weapons.  Dozens of cruise missiles were fired and hit their targets.  After that, al Qaeda was never heard from again.

Unfortunately, the last part isn't true.  Al Qaeda, as we all know, survived in Afghanistan, killed some 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, and triggered wars that have turned out to be America's longest military conflicts.  Over 4,800 Americans died in Iraq, and more than 2,000 in Afghanistan.  American personnel are now engaged in fighting al Qaeda or its affiliates in South Asia, the Middle East, the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, and who knows, maybe even Southeast Asia (there are Muslim insurgencies in Indonesia and the Philippines).   There is no end in sight for America's war against violent Islamic radicals.

President Obama and his supporters seem to think they can conducted a limited strike in Syria to punish Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons, and then be done with it.  Who are they kidding?  The bad guys in this scenario grow beards on the other cheek; they don't turn it.  Iran, Syria and Hezbollah are all promising retaliation if America launches cruise missiles.  Americans and American facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and probably other places are likely to be on the hit list.  American allies like Israel, Turkey, and other nations may be attacked.  Sooner or later, Assad or one of his allies will do something that will require further American action.  That's what happened with al Qaeda 15 years ago.  The 1998 cruise missile strikes on al Qaeda's training camps led to the 9/11 bombings, which then led to a war we're still fighting.

There is no chance--as in zero percent--that a U.S. cruise missile strike against Assad's forces will be the last word.  President Obama has yet to explain how he will deal with the many retaliatory responses from the bad guys, all without putting boots on the ground in some distant place and without entangling us in another endless war against people who can outlast us because it's their home.  In all likelihood, he has no explanation, because there is no way to contain America's involvement in Syria once we cruise in. 

As Americans know from hard experience, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and President Obama has the road we're now on very well paved.   Good intentions aren't the only thing that counts.  Competence and diligence matter, too.  You have to have a strategy to win--convincingly and quickly.  If you don't have such a strategy, don't dive into a war.  Ask the 58,000 Americans who died in Vietnam and the 4,800 who died in Iraq about this point.  There doesn't seem to be much strategic thinking going on in the White House; just political maneuvering in the hope of preventing the President from losing credibility for shooting from the hip.  Some of the U.S. troops in Afghanistan today were seven or eight years old at the time of the 9/11 bombings.  Today's parents of elementary school students should pay close attention to the discussion of U.S. military action in Syria.

How Does Obama Define Success in Syria?

Barack Obama has flinched.  Not once.  Not twice.  But three times in the last year or so.  Each time, he rattled the saber at Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Assad called Obama's hand, and Obama flinched.  Now, evidently rattled himself by the unexpected rejection of military action by the British Parliament, Obama seems to be looking around for someone to offer a fist bump.  French President Francois Hollande has been supportive, but Obama has called for Congress to pass a resolution endorsing a military response to Assad's use of chemical weapons on Syrian civilians.

The Democrats, who control the Senate, are feeling queasy, but may support a narrowly crafted resolution.  The Republicans, who control the House, are skeptical and may reject the resolution. 

The Administration has offered a variety of negative reasons for striking Assad's forces, arguing that bad or negative consequences will ensue if the U.S. does not strike.  Chemical weapons are horrible and are prohibited by international law.  The United States, and especially the President would lose credibility.  The Iranians would be emboldened in their quest for nuclear weapons.  The North Koreans would be emboldened to pull more septic content.  The Russians would be emboldened in any number of ways. 

Chemical weapons are horrible.  But does the President see himself as a referee, seeking to penalize Assad for face masking?  Is the President's plan to throw down a yellow flag, move Assad back a few yards, and then let the slaughter continue?  Is it okay for Assad to continue his nationwide massacre if he just limits himself to conventional weapons?  Why don't we issue striped uniforms to the U.S. military and give them whistles to blow along with cruise missiles to fire?

As for credibility, Assad is in a fight for his very life.  He couldn't give a rat's left ear what Obama does, because Obama won't put U.S. boots on the ground and hasn't even provided military support to the Syrian rebels that he promised months ago.  Obama doesn't present a significant threat to Assad.  Maybe Assad's forces will refrain from obvious use of chemical weapons for a while and employ more conventional but plenty lethal weaponry to kill many more Syrians.  But nothing Obama is contemplating will make him more credible to anyone who matters.

The Iranians are, if the vaguely sourced information published by the press over the past few years is accurate, hellbent on building nuclear weapons on the fastest possible schedule.  It won't matter a bit what Obama does in Syria.  A U.S. military strike there will only lead the Iranians to more comprehensively disguise their activities.  But it won't dissuade them in the least from halting their nuclear program.

The North Koreans are constrained by the presence of 26,000 U.S. troops stationed along the demilitarized zone in the Korean peninsula.  North Korea can't do anything substantial to South Korea or any other nation without affecting these troops.  As long as those troops are there, what Obama does or doesn't do in Syria isn't significant.

As for Russia, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is ex-KBG.  If there was an intelligence service that knew how to spot and exploit human weakness, it was the KGB.  Putin surely has Obama figured out--the man isn't bold.  He's not a risk taker.  He wants to be on the winning side no matter who that is or what happens (this is how the U.S. wound up being detested by everyone in Egypt--we tried to be everyone's buddy and ended up no one's buddy).  Obama is like the political equivalent of Microsoft--very successful, but not so likely to continue that success in the future because of an aversion to taking real risks.  Whatever carefully calibrated and narrowly focused military strike Obama now orders isn't going to convince Putin that Obama is anything except a smart, but cautious man trying to stay on his feet in a back alley brawl.  The smartest man in the alley might win the brawl, but the meanest man is the one you have to watch out for.

To persuade Congress and the American people that military action in Syria is justified, President Obama has to present positive reasons.  We need to know how we succeed, how we win.  Waging war for the purpose of stopping bad people from being bad isn't likely to work, unless one is prepared to wage total war and completely conquer the enemy, as America did to Germany and Japan in World War II.  No one has suggested that America conquer Syria.  For the past fifty years, America has dived into military adventures for poorly conceived reasons, and not surprisingly done poorly.  The only clear case for offensive military action--the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan-- was thoroughly botched by the second Bush Administration when it failed to deal definitively with Osama bin Laden after trapping him in late 2001 at Tora Bora.  We're still suffering the consequences of that failure.  If President Obama wants our support for a strike in Syria, he should tell us how we attain victory.  If there is no victory that can be defined or attained, we should hold our fire.

Losers and Winners on the Ides of March

They weren't kidding about the Ides of March.

LOSERS. This is a day for losers.

Japan. With the 9.0 earthquake (about as big as they come) and the 30-foot tsunami that followed, Japan got walloped. Now, the rising risk of reactor fuel meltdown has the Japanese nation turning to its nuclear industry and asking, "Et tu?"

Industrialized World. Japan is deeply integrated into the world economy, as an exporter and importer. The ramifications of the soon-to-come earthquake-driven recession there affect crucial industries around the globe, including electronics, automotive, insurance (obviously), petroleum, and banking. With China slowing its economy to rein in inflation, Europe turning to austerity as it struggles with its currency crisis, and America getting by on the methadone of Federal Reserve easy, easy money, there's not a whole lot of horsepower in the international economy to pick up the slack left by Japan. The stock markets are starting to figure this out.

Nuclear Power Industry. While some Japanese nuclear power plant workers may, in effect, be committing hara kiri trying to contain meltdown risk, nuclear power projects worldwide are being curtailed and cut. When you play around with stuff that has real potential for destruction, no amount of engineering can guarantee safety. That's true of nuclear energy, and it's also true of financial derivatives.

Libyan Rebels. With the world's attention diverted to East Asia, the Libyan rebels' chances for resupply and a no-fly zone from other nations are fading rapidly. The U.S. buys little or no Libyan oil, and has no vital national interest there. Britain and France were quick to advocate a no-fly zone, but they know that only the U.S. Navy has the resources and power to actually impose one. That means America would have to bear the burdens and take the casualties. The U.S. government is clearly stalling for time--its demand for UN authorization is a transparent pretext for delay. Maybe the Obama administration knows something it can't really share with the rest of us, yet. Things in the Persian Gulf may be worse than the news services have reported. Saudi Arabian troops have rolled (in unmarked vehicles) into Bahrain, in order to help the Bahraini government stay in control. Things in the Persian Gulf could be deteriorating, and the U.S. military may have to keep its powder dry in order to retain the option to play a role there, where the U.S. has a large vested interest.

Barack Obama. The President hesitated to join up with the Libyan rebels, and they now think he has a secret pact with Gaddafi. Obama has called on Gaddafi to cede power and leave Libya, so Gaddafi knows that Obama isn't on his side. No matter who wins in Libya, America and Obama lose. The Japanese nuclear crisis has blown up Obama's nuclear power policies, and a recession in Japan could put pressure on the administration to apply more fiscal stimulus (i.e., engage in more deficit spending, which isn't exactly politically trendy these days). The perhaps not well publicized unrest in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, along with a deteriorating situation in Yemen, put the Obama administration in the position of wanting to side with oppressive monarchs in order to protect U.S. interests. Even if these monarchs survive, America's already compromised image in the Arab world will suffer.

Republicans. International events are taking front page news coverage away from Republicans and their domestically-focused agenda. They can't easily criticize President Obama's foreign policy, which is strikingly similar to George W. Bush's. They may have to settle for appearances on Dancing With the Stars.



WINNERS. Even in ugly situations, there are winners. That's why you find the most cynical of stock market speculators swarming into select parts of the market when a crisis hits.

Natural Gas and Shale Oil. The NIMBY style controversies over fracking may seem manageable in light of massive radiation releases from Japanese nuclear power plants. Natural gas and shale oil might have to be repriced to cover the costs of reimbursing people damaged by fracking. But the stuff is found in plenitude in these United States, and will surely be a growing source of energy in the future.

Coal. It's not beloved by environmentalists and mining it leaves ugly scars on the land. But America has massive coal reserves and will surely turn more and more to them in the future. Long term, alternative/renewable energy sources may begin to play a major role in America, but for the short and medium term, coal will be definitely be a part of our lives.

Oil Producers. Oil producers, like Venezuela, Russia, Nigeria and Canada, see their fortunes rise. Too bad not all of them are friendly to America.

Iran. Iran gets a win-win here: increased revenues from rising oil prices and more opportunity from the Arab uprising to stir up Shiite co-religionists on the Arabian peninsula.

China and Taiwan. As Japan's economy struggles, Chinese and Taiwanese companies will get a chance to get into high value-added product lines the Japanese have dominated. Semiconductors and high tech automotive components are obvious targets. Look for Chinese automobile companies to try to move up their deadlines for introducing their products to America.

Let's Count Our Blessings

The world is full of trouble, it would seem.

Libya is a free fire zone, with a gonzo maniac leading one side. This could end badly.

Oman is the latest Arab nation to succumb to unrest. The insurgency spreads.

Wisconsin is deadlocked over labor union rights in what has become the political confrontation of the year. Unfortunately, the management side of the dispute is run by a governor who didn't notice that a blogger from Buffalo isn't one of his biggest political contributors. So he probably won't be smart enough to see a good compromise that's right in front of him. He's now threatening numerous layoffs of state employees. The demonstrations in Madison echo the antiwar protests of the Vietnam era. Governor Walker echoes the American officer in Vietnam who reportedly said, "it became necessary to destroy the town to save it."

China is slowing its economy in an effort to control accelerating inflation and the potential for political unrest. This would take away one of the few sources of growth in the world economy.

But things really aren't that bad. Let's count our blessings.

Charlie Sheen tells us he has Adonis DNA. We should be grateful a living deity would share his divine talents on the small screen, at least until those unbelievers at CBS canceled his show.

Bernie Madoff tells New York Magazine that he's a good person. And to think we held such negative views of him. Although broke and in prison, Bernie still has a wealth of shamelessness DNA.

Speaking of shamelessness DNA, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, recently criticized Arab leaders for their oppressive response to political protests. Even in a house of mirrors, this guy would manage not to see himself.

Let's Be Thankful

That:

Congress is looking closely at the Fed. In the last few years, the Fed has done a terrible job, and then a good (but risky) job dealing with the consequences of its terrible job. Some close scrutiny and double guessing would be healthy for the Fed. Congress may moderate the Fed's responsibilities and power, which could turn out for the better. Making the Fed into an uber-regulator, as proposed by the administration, would be a very risky move. Virtually all of the government's power to deal with a financial crisis would be vested in a single agency that too vigorously resists oversight. The potential for narrow focus, an oversupply of certitude in its own wisdom, and increased traffic through the revolving door make such a concentration of regulatory power a bad idea. Even though Congress is proceeding with a maximum of soundbite histrionics that obscure the substantive importance of the issues, it's making the Fed take a hard and careful look at itself. That's Congress' role in the Constitutional structure of the government, and the Fed will be a better agency after enduring the cacophony of democracy.

Retail investors have sat out the stock market rally. An objective look at the evidence strongly suggests that, for the next year or so, the market has quite a bit more downside risk than upside. Maybe stocks will drift a bit higher. But only those that believe assets only rise in value and never fall would think that 2010 will be a banner year for stocks. The good thing about retail investors sidelining themselves is that if and when the market falls, the impact on consumption will probably be less than 2008's nosedive. If your portfolio hasn't been hammered, you'll have less gut level fear of $4 lattes.

Health insurance reform is progressing. It seems like just about every alternative is criticized for involving increased costs. But the question is compared to what? Health care costs have risen faster than inflation for decades. Health care now absorbs about 16% of GDP and is expected to rise to about 20% in ten years. If a reformed health insurance system provides more comprehensive and fairer coverage, isn't that a worthwhile result? Costs are going to rise anyway if we leave our current incomplete and unfair system in place. Costs are a very important issue, but not reforming health insurance coverage isn't going to keep costs under control. We should work to achieve comprehensive and fair coverage now. Costs will be debated and dealt with as far as one can see into the future, because they'll always be an issue.

U.S. troop levels in Iraq are falling. Iraq wasn't and isn't of strategic consequence to the United States. That's why W and Dick, with their juvenile, tunnel-vision machismo, recklessly weakened the U.S. military by fighting an unnecessary war at a time of rising worldwide commitments for America. The real problems--the growing quagmire in Afghanistan, a soon-to-be nuclear armed Iran, the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, safe havens for terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, and the twilight zone quality of North Korea's bipolar Kabuki theatrics over missiles and nuclear weapons--will absorb all the resources the U.S. can muster.

Jon and Kate are going off the air. We like the 8. But, toward the end, Jon and Kate were mostly enriching TLC and the tabloids while sounding, shall we say, a bit tiresome.

We're reading less about Lindsay, Paris and Britney. After you've read 100 train wreck stories, the 101st really isn't all that interesting. But fear not for the tabloids. They've always got Brad, Angie and Jennifer.

If You're Concerned About the Price of Oil, Watch Israel and the U.S. Fifth Fleet

Israel, it's just been reported, recently conducted a military exercise that appeared to simulate an aerial attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. Two years ago, Israel fought a war in Lebanon against Iran's proxies, Hezbollah. Things didn't go well for Israel, to a large degree because Israeli intelligence severely underestimated Hezbollah's military capabilities. No doubt Israel now takes Iran very seriously, just as Iran takes Israel very seriously. The exercise could be the prelude to the real thing. This is all the more likely because the hawkish, but soon to be concluded George W. Bush presidency may offer the Israelis a degree of support that future presidents, chastened by the failure of the Iraq War, would not provide.

The Iranians will probably have trouble stopping an Israeli air raid. Israel's capability for long distance air attacks is legendary. Iran's air force is a mulligan stew of miscellaneous aircraft, some pretty modern but most out of date and lacking in spare parts. Many of them are not in operational condition. Iran's air defense system is of uncertain quality, with an apparently disappointing performance in the Iran-Iraq War during the early 1980s.

But the Iranians appear to subscribe to the notion that the best defense is a good offense, and have a good understanding of asymmetric warfare. Iran has built up its ballistic missile force, and is modernizing its navy with submarines, frigates and other ships that can deliver missiles. Missiles are hard to stop. Israel found this out in its 2006 war with Hezbollah, during which Hezbollah missiles bombarded Israeli cities that no enemy airplanes could possibly approach.

Iran likely hopes to prevent an Israeli attack through a policy of modified mutual assured destruction. If Israel bombs Iranian nuclear facilities, Iran likely will do everything it can to stop the flow of oil to the industrialized world. With its arsenal of missiles, Iran would surely bombard Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Persian Gulf oil producers. Since the most productive oil fields in the world are in eastern Saudi Arabia, an easy ballistic missile shot from Iran, Iran's ability to disrupt the world's oil markets is plain to see.

While the Saudis, Kuwaitis and other Persian Gulf nations have modern military aircraft, courtesy of the United States, F-15s aren't designed to stop barrages of hundreds or thousands of missiles. Indeed, they might need reinforced concrete bunkers as protection against such attacks. And even if the Saudis and Kuwaitis have Patriot missile defense systems, those systems won't defend oil tankers trying to pass through the Persian Gulf from Exocet or other cruise missiles.

All of which is a long way of saying that if Israel attacks Iran, the U.S. will have to get involved, like it or not. The best way to stop Iranian retaliation against oil producing nations would be air attacks by U.S. forces against Iran's missile forces. The Israelis don't have the capability to launch the massive attacks needed against Iran's missiles. Only the United States, with its vast surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, and its enormous array of cruise missiles, piloted aircraft, drone aircraft and smart weapons, could have any hope of containing Iran's missiles.

The U.S. Fifth Fleet, which is assigned to the Persian Gulf region, would play a crucial role. While the U.S. already has air forces involved in the Iraq War, those forces likely aren't enough to fight on the Iranian front as well as the Iraqi front. The Fifth Fleet, beefed up with more than its usual complement of carriers, would have to be brought to bear.

Thus, the movements of the Fifth Fleet and Israel's pronouncements about Iran bear watching. If there's a scenario for $200 a barrel oil in the next six months, this is it. After that, a new President will reside in the White House, no doubt putting a restraining hand on Israel's air force. It's possible that the Bush administration's turn in the last couple of years toward diplomacy in the Middle East will bear fruit. By all accounts, few Iranians want war with America, and even fewer Americans want war with Iran. But if we had control over events, oil wouldn't now be trading at $135 a barrel.