So Far, So Good

North Korea, Russia, Iran, China, Libya: Obama is stumbling from one international crisis to another never resolving any one of them before a new one appears. But then, he didn't run on his foreign policy expertise, did he? He ran on a pledge to fix the economy. How is that going by the way? Well, at least we have gays in the military and health care reform, that's something.

It Sounds Good

While in Seoul, Korea last Saturday, President Obama said that the United States did not use its military might to "impose things" on others. I have to wonder: doesn't he read the newspaper? Has he been living under a rock for the last 15 years?  Hasn't the threat to use force been a staple of U.S. foreign policy for decades?  Perhaps he believes that the U.S. use of force under the flag of the U.N. or NATO doesn't count because the U.N. and NATO do not act to impose the will of the U.S. on others but the will of the international community. If so, that is a sleight of hand because it ignores the fact that the use of force by the U.N or NATO is nearly always at the behest of the U.S. and never occurs without U.S. consent. Neither the U.N. nor NATO has ever once used force for purposes at odds with U.S. interests.

You can be confident that the president's statement was made for propaganda purposes in furtherance the image that, unlike other nations, the U.S. always acts with the best of intentions and sincerest emotions in pursuit of justice and the common interests of mankind. You can also be confident that the president's statement was also made with Russia's recent actions in mind. The idea that the U.S. is unique among nations because we never act out of selfishness or calculation but out of principle is important to Americans. It is part of what makes us feel unique. It is what allows us to see our bombs as good bombs rather than bad ones.

A Silver Bullet?

In New York and Chicago, legislators are going after the new trend of vaping. Vaping, like electronic cigarettes, delivers nicotine to the user by heating a fluid containing nicotine. In vaping, nicotine is delivered by heating a liquid containing variable amounts of nicotine, usually flavored, in a battery powered pipe. Critics want vaping regulated and subject to the same strict laws that apply to smoking. In their efforts to do so, they are piling one spurious assertion on top of another

The arguments put forward by those upset by vaping are predicted on error, assumption, and ignorance.  One argument put forth by opponents is that vaping is a "gateway" to cancer causing products. This is an absurd argument, particularly in the age of growing pressure to legalize marijuana use. The chances of someone moving from vaping to tobacco are remarkably low. As anyone who as ever smoked can tell you, the first experience with tobacco is unpleasant. Acquiring the habit takes perseverance. One must work through the stinging eyes, the coughing, and foul smell before one gets comfortable with it. Vaping occasions none of those responses. Why would one trade the mild, scented taste of vaping for the harsh, bitter, and stinging effects of smoking, to say nothing of the serious risks smoking poses to one's health?

A second argument put forward by vaping's opponents is that it would cause confusion and thereby provide an opening for surreptitious tobacco use. It is contended that smokers could simply blend in. This is an equally ridiculous argument. While Vaping produces no odor or smell, a cigarette can be smelled from across a room. A smoker in a restaurant would quickly be discovered even in a roomful of vapor. Yes, opponents of vaping will say, but how will you locate the smoker amidst all the vapers? That would not be difficult. The smoker would be the one exhaling smoke and holding a smoking cigarette. Lastly, people who vape do so from pipes which cannot by any means be confused with a cigarette.

The last, and of all the arguments so far put forward, most credible criticism of vaping is that it is addictive. After all, the purpose of vaping is to ingest nicotine, a highly addictive substance. What is overlooked by those making that argument is that nicotine gum, lozenges, and patches contain nicotine as well. That is why people buy them. Yes, that's true you might say, that is why they are kept behind the counter so as to keep them out of the hands, and mouths of kids. It would not be difficult to take steps to keep vapor out of the hands of minors. Keeping vapor out of reach and requiring ID for its purchase would be more than adequate to address those concerns.

As a former smoker, I have seen, and felt, the benefits of vaping. In the two weeks since I quit smoking and took up vaping my sense of taste and smell have improved and my lungs have started to clear. I have even resumed running. With the option of choosing the nicotine level in vapor, I will be able to gradually reduce my dependency on it. In the mean time, I will let my wallet get a little fatter. Unless researchers are able to find some substantial health risks associated with it, and lord knows they are trying, the busybodies should keep quiet. Vapor might just be the silver bullet the anti tobacco lobby has been looking for.

Poking the Bear

Despite harsh words, stern faces, and economic threats by the West, Russia has not backed down in its claim on Crimea or its actions in Ukraine. More than a few people have been asking why Russia has been able to thwart Western efforts to curb its recent aggressive actions. Russia's obstinacy is frequently presumed to be because the West has been too diffident and dithering in its response and should take a harder line and act more aggressively. The error the those people are making is that they are underestimating Russia's resolve and resiliency. Basically, the reason Russia is able to thumb its nose at the West is because, unlike Libya, Iraq, and Iran, Russia is a scientifically advanced country. It is a developed country with a large and diverse economy that is deeply entwined with Europe's and has natural resources that are much in demand around the world, not the least of which is natural gas. It is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. It can make life miserable for the U.S. around the world. It believes itself immune to Western military intervention because it has a potent military that, if unable to beat the West, can certainly bloody it. As if all that weren't enough, it can also incinerate the U.S. and Europe if it has to.

 

Certainly the West has economic leverage with Russia. The European Union is Russia's largest trading partner and accounts for nearly $300 billion in trade. The EU is the most important investor in Russia. It is estimated that up to 75% of foreign direct investment stocks in Russia come from EU Member States. The problem, however, is that EU imports from Russia are dominated by raw materials, in particular, oil (crude and refined) and natural gas which cannot easily or conveniently be replaced by other suppliers. Any significant rupture in trade could easily throw Europe's fragile economies into a tailspin and cause unrest.  An economic struggle with Russia would come down to a contest of whose economy would buckle and whose population would take to the street first, Russia's or Western Europe's. The question then is how much economic turbulence Western European nations are willing to accept for the sake of Crimea and making a point with Russia. If recent history is any guide, Europe has shown little stomach for economic austerity and even less for foreign adventure. It is doubtful, to say the least, that Europeans would cheerfully tighten their belts further, let alone muster the will for any military adventure in the East, especially if one looks at the track record of Western adventures in Russia.

 

 

The U.S. and its allies have become accustomed to being able to bring wayward nations into line through a combination of economic actions, military threats, and political maneuvering. Despite the impressive results those actions have achieved around the world, it is unlikely such actions would cause Russia to yield in Crimea. Crimea is too important to Russia economically, politically, and more importantly, psychologically to surrender it. The favored, i.e. bloodless, measures that have proven effective in bringing other nations around are unlikely to work with Russia. Russia is simply too big, too powerful, too important, and has too many options to be bullied.

Throughout history, the Russian people have endured suffering and hardship in defense of their nation unimaginable to most in the West. They did so for czars, despots, and tyrants, not because they felt beholden to their government or their leaders, but because the Motherland called them to. Consider what they endured under Stalin. Despite the horrors of the 1930's, Russians still fought and died by the millions against Nazi Germany. So far the West has been careful in its response by carefully targeting unpopular "oligarchs" and politicians for sanctions. In frustration with the results, it is considering expanding sanctions. But it had better be very careful. If the West errs by overplaying its hand and thereby forcing Russians to choose between their country or their standard of living we risk rousing the Russian people and in doing so making the world a more dangerous place to live in.

The West should take a stand and lecture Russia. After all, it has an reputation to maintain. What the West should not do is get carried away by its rhetoric and step into a conflict that no good will come from.

Clinton's Blunder

Hilary Clinton recently likened Russian activities in Crimea to those of Hitler's early expansionism in Europe during the 1930s. In doing so, Clinton made a blunder of epic proportions. Clearly Clinton has not paid much attention to the war on the Eastern Front in WWII. If nothing else, Clinton failed to appreciate the effect of WWII on the Russian psyche. The "Great Patriotic War", as it is known in Russia, was fought on a scale unimaginable to most in the West. From 1941 until the end of the war in 1945, the USSR bore the brunt of the fighting in Europe. The war on the Eastern Front claimed between 21-28 million Soviet lives, most of them civilians (the U.S. Army, by contrast, lost 141,000 dead in the battle for Europe). The Battle of Stalingrad alone cost the Russians well over 1 million casualties, including 40,000 civilians. Over the course of the war, millions of Soviet civilians were executed or sent to perish in Nazi labor camps. Crops were burned or confiscated leaving untold thousands to die from starvation. Villages, towns, and cities were destroyed leaving tens of thousands more to die from exposure during the harsh Russian winters. The war in the East was fought with a savagery unimaginable to the comfortable Western mind. It was a war of annihilation.

For Clinton to compare Russia in any way to Hitler and Nazi Germany is an outrage to the millions of Russians who died fighting Hitler. If Clinton was searching for an analogy to shock people into action she would have done better to choose Stalin to make her point. But she didn't. She chose Hitler because Hitler is always an easy target. By doing so she made a statement sure to mobilize the Russian people into a unified indignation. The only way Clinton could have done worse would have been to claim that Israel's settler policy is analogous to Hitler's call for "Lebensraum". Even then, she would not have done much worse.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military is boosting its NATO presence in eastern Europe to bolster the defenses of U.S. allies in the region as a response to Russia's actions in the Crimean Peninsula. To that end, a Defense Department official confirmed that the U.S. will "augment" NATO's mission in Baltic countries. The U.S. has stationed four F-15s to the Baltic Air Policing rotation, a loose collection of NATO and local air forces policing the Baltic region, and plans to send more forces. "This action comes at the request of our Baltic Allies and further demonstrates our commitment to NATO security," the official said. In doing so, the U.S. is expanding its sphere of influence further eastward into territory long considered by Russia to be its prerogative.

Some have taken to comparing the recent series of events in Ukraine with the events that led up to WWII. It is nothing of the sort. If anything, it is like WWI where a complex web of treaties and political miscalculations led to a local conflict blossoming into a world war that no one wanted. By taking on further obligations in Eastern Europe, NATO increases the chances of a conflict with Russia. We should also be careful of fanning the flames of nationalism, which is what we are doing whenever we support a tribe, a religion, an ethnicity, or a race in its struggle for autonomy and self determination. Nationalism has caused more wars, violence, and suffering in Europe than any other factor except, perhaps, religion which itself can be considered a variety of nationalism. Clinton's choice of words will only exacerbate tension in Crimea and elsewhere in and near Russia. Russia increasingly feels beleaguered. It is not a good time to humiliate or insult it. Crimea is not Kazakhstan, Moldavia, or the Baltic States. It has been part of Russia for over 300 years. It is a jewel in her crown. It is one of her children.  Like any mother, "Mother Russia" has always been disinclined to part with her children. The nearer those children are to her, the more dear they are. She will not give up Crimea without a struggle.

Remember the U.S. once had a region that sought to break away. I am sure everyone remembers how that turned out.






 

               

 

Not Courageous at All

Speaking at the recent Human Rights Campaign's "Time to Thrive" conference for LGBT counselors, actress Ellen Page made what many have called a "brave decision". She decided to be open about being a lesbian in the hope that doing so would make a difference to those who are tired of "lying by omission", as she put it. Why is it that when a celebrity comes out and declares to the press and to the world that he or she is gay they often act as if they are taking a controversial step or somehow putting themselves in jeopardy? Ellen Page wasn't being brave. She was not taking a risk.  She will not be black listed. She faces no recrimination.

Ellen Page is not jeopardizing her career by announcing she is gay. If anything, she is advancing it. She is in the papers and on the web. Not only are people talking about her, she now has the cache that comes with coming out of the closet and announcing one's alternative sexual preference to the world. How many celebrities have announced their preference to have sex with people of the same gender as themselves? 100? 500? More? How many of them have suffered for doing so? Pastors and politicians might face repercussions for announcing their sexual preferences, but celebrities don't, unless perhaps they depend on the Family Channel for keeping their careers afloat. Page has merely taken a place alongside all the other notables who have come out of the closet.

Page, like most others who preceded her and will follow her, declared that her revelation was meant to encourage others, to give them hope and lend them support. I am not so cynical to believe that there was no good will or a desire to provide comfort to others in Page's actions. What I take issue with is the characterization of Page's actions as courageous. They were nothing of the sort. Courage is only required when there is risk. Page faces no risk. Her career is in no jeopardy. Indeed, it is quite likely that she will benefit from her actions by acquiring the sheen that attends to coming out in Hollywood.

What Page did can be applauded (if your sensibilities run in that direction). She can be commended, perhaps even praised for doing something she had no obligation to do. Let's just not call what she did "courageous." We should save that word for people who put something more on the line than Page did.

Forward to the Past

According to news reports, the situation in Egypt is becoming more volatile each day. Despite the military's heavy hand, things are getting worse as the opposition reorganizes and turns toward a resumption of violence. For this, the Egyptian military has no one to blame but itself. They have given the Muslim opposition every reason for violence. The Brotherhood cannot take its grievances to the ballot box because the new government has outlawed it. By toppling the elected government and outlawing protest, the military has made criminals and terrorists of those who oppose its rule. If the military had acted more prudently, much of the turmoil could have been averted. Egypt could simply have waited out the Brotherhood. If the Army had just acted to preserve the integrity of electoral process rather than seizing power, things likely would be settled at the next election. Certainly, things would have been turbulent, but so long as the electoral process was kept intact, nothing the Brotherhood could have done would be irreversible. Should the Brotherhood have proven to be as incompetent and divisive as its critics claim it is, they would have been voted out and discredited as a political force. But the military chose not to wait. They decided to act and to act forcefully. They deposed the government and quickly pushed through a new constitution assuring the military's place atop Egypt's political order.

Even though the new government declared the group a terrorist organization last month and brought a heavy and down upon its head, Muslim Brotherhood supporters have continued their protests. The government refuses to relent and has gone so far as to threaten to arrest anyone who attends Muslim Brotherhood protests or provides financial support to the organization. Because of the military's actions, the Muslim opposition has no political options and therefore every reason to shun the political process and non violent opposition. They can point to the coup and the subsequent crackdown on their leaders and party as proof that democracy doesn't work and force is the only way to achieve change. The current government can point to popular opposition to Brotherhood rule as the reason for their action but the fact is that the military acted to preserve its power, privilege, and position. If nothing else, the decision by Assisi to run for president and the expansion of the crackdown to include other, non Islamic opposition groups confirms the determination of the Egyptian military to maintain its position as the paramount power in Egypt regardless of the changing political landscape.

Assisi's decision to run for president also confirms that the military has no intention of entrusting the government of Egypt to the people. Assisi will win and the military will remain astride the government and poised to act wherever and whenever it sees fit. Yet, it was decades of military rule that kept Egypt a politically ossified, economically stagnant, second world nation. With the military's take over, it is unrealistic to assume anything will change. That is not really a problem for the U.S., hence our cautious and measured response to the military takeover. A politically centralized, economically and socially moribund Egypt is to our advantage because it makes it predictable and dependent. Democratic regimes have frequently proven to be precarious and unreliable partners to U.S. goals in the region and require more resources and diplomatic finesse than we would prefer to apply. We will cluck about restoring democracy and protecting civil liberties but we will not apply any significant pressure on the government in Cairo. We will issue statements but our admonishments to restore popular rule will be subordinated to our homage to order and stability.

Giddy at their success after so long in the wilderness, the Brotherhood overreached. But, rather than rebuking or checking the Brotherhood, the military decided instead to crush it, and, by all accounts, it is achieving its goals. But by pushing the Muslim Brotherhood out of power and back underground the Egyptian military is making the Brotherhood once again unaccountable to the people of Egypt and free to brood and plot in secrecy. More importantly, it has freed the Brotherhood from the burden of creating, which has always been a far more difficult task than destroying. Out of power, they will be on familiar ground. The Brotherhood has a great deal of experience as an underground group operating in the shadows. They will be abandoning their weakness and returning to their strength. Egypt's generals can be thanked for that.