A Career Ruined, A Career Beginning

I remember the sad figure of Colin Powell. The war in Iraq had ended, the American military had won in convincing, powerful fashion. But, the American government was losing the peace. It wasn't a slow process, it happened almost overnight. It wasn't a planned failure, it was simply a failure to plan. Nobody had ever given much thought to what to do with a country after "liberation." It was almost clockwork the way it spiraled into chaos, hate, and resistance. And you could watch Powell accept his part in the painful opera playing out on the world stage, shrinking in stature and resolve. 

Like a good soldier he had stood, with conviction, in front of the United Nations and declared Iraq had developed, stockpiled and was ready to distribute dangerous amounts of the notorious Weapons of Mass Destruction. Like a good soldier he never winced, or cried out loud when he realized he had been fed a pile of elaborate deception.

And like a good soldier he watched without complaint as the situation deteriorated until the contempt and loathing for America had become a palpable entity in Iraq. He knew, better than most, we had taken a country and turned it into a laboratory to nurture, train and enthuse terrorists. and he knew he had a hand in its creation. He watched without public complaint as his career was destroyed by the ambitions of those above him.

Now, I watch Sean Spicer. Watch as he speaks with strength about America defending its interest in the South China Sea. American interests seem to be some islands that China actually built in the sea. Knowing full well this will inflame virulent opposition in China. Knowing China is our largest trading partner, and the world's second largest economy. When pressed for details I hear him say, "I think, as we develop further, we’ll have more information on it." Yes, Mr. Spicer that has always worked so well. Maybe we can impose a naval blockade from over 8,000 miles away. 

Then, we hear Sean Spicer talk about how President Trump would be willing to work with Russia in bombing ISIS. Despite the fact the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act forbids most contact with the Russian military “until Russia has ceased its occupation of Ukrainian territory and its aggressive activities that threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization." What about American interests there, Mr. Spicer?

And what if we do work out a deal with the Russians to bomb ISIS. The lessons of Afghanistan, our war, and the Soviet Union's, the painful lessons of Iraq, the never ending lessons of Israel in Palestine all serve to prove that bombing extremists accomplish nothing of lasting value. The amount of dead terrorists means nothing, changes nothing. We spend a lot of money on bombs, lose a few planes, kill some innocent civilians in the process, unavoidable when bombing an enemy entrenched in a civilian population, (and also serves as a fine recruiting tool for the terrorists), and we still have ISIS, or whatever they call themselves next.

I wonder how much it takes to get a man to sell out, with Colin Powell it is easy to think he really believed what he said, he was willing to gamble his long, glorious career. But, what about Sean Spicer? What is gambling? I'm afraid the gamble is huge, and no matter who wins America will pay the fee, just like we did for the people who sent Powell into an early and shameful retirement.

Syria, and the Path of Most Resistance.

With the Turkish invasion of Syria there will be renewed cries for American intervention. Outrage and indignation will be the method of discourse. Ringing from one coast to another, calls for action will echo endlessly across the landscape. Demands and accusations without much in the way of substance. Though, that is nothing new. It will only change in intensity and pitch.

What no one, on either side of the issue will discuss is the end game. What is the object once the military is embroiled in another quagmire in a foreign country where they are not welcome, and the culture completely alien?

Any conflict, or war needs to have a political end. Without a political solution war is only mindless bloodshed. And the political solution in Syria is lost in a maze of conflicting factions, armies, militias and jihadists

Certainly, the people of Syria need help. But, they need help that will bring a solution. More destruction is not much aid to people being bombed, shelled and shot at in a constant barrage of screaming terror.

Should it be America, probably, because no one else will. But, it needs to have a focus, an end worth the means. Before we begin military operations there should be a strategic goal in place.

America's military carries enormous fire power, incredible technological wizardry, and the means and might to make effective use of all the tools. But, the American government lacks the will power to achieve political victory.

The lives of countless soldiers have been squandered since the Battle for Naktong in 1950. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, twice and Afghanistan have seen American military superiority and resolve. What victories have resulted, what peace has been achieved?

If the country is drawn into the fray it has to be with the intention of winning the battles, winning the war and winning the peace. Else why bother?

How Can The Threat Be Ended?

Russia has made some marginal gains, at a huge expense in Syria. With the might of Russian bombs the forces of Assad have made inroads into areas around Allepo, but nothing that would offer much hope for the regime. And Putin has been quoted as saying "we are far from using everything we are capable of."

American airstrikes in Iran and Syria continue to kill suspected terrorists. And they have, it seems, no plan to slow the sorties. "If you are part of ISIL we will kill you." that is their mission statement right now.

Millions of dollars worth of bombs are being dropped. Buildings and people are exploding at an alarming rate. Death has come to the Middle East, and he is flying a billion dollar, multi purpose fighter/bomber.

But, repeated estimates of "enemy combatants" hover around 30,000 insurgent fighters. Despite the
fact that American estimates are between 23,000 and 25,000 ISIL members killed. Russian and Syrian estimates of casualties are similar. And that number is supposedly adjusted to exclude the civilian casualties.

Even if one assumes that the estimates of combatants killed are overestimated ISIS is replenishing ranks with alarming efficiency. And sooner or later enough lives will be lost and money spent that the super powers will take their expensive equipment and go home. What then?

One thing neither of the great powers is talking about, and it seems like it should have been the first step, is "what should we do to keep a person who is neutral from joining the ranks of ISIL?"  They didn't ask before entering the fray, and they haven't asked since.

How can this river of willing soldiers be stopped? What steps need to be taken to end the enlistment?

It is a stretch to say America or Russia can understand the workings of the Middle Eastern mind, but if they ever want to leave with dignity and hope of security they had better find out.

Syrians deserve better.

Russian planes, tanks and combat infantry troops have moved into Syria. Putin's boldness is being debated around the world, and his brazen style is being held up as a guide for a modern world leader. A brash decision to tackle a thorny situation that has confounded leaders across the globe.

But, on further review what is there to gain from such a daring, costly move? Whether the goal is to destroy the combat ability of the ISIL forces or to support a despotic, minority dictatorship there is no clear exit strategy. It is not a fight that can be won, at least not through invasion.

Even now thousands of Sunni Jihadist are flowing into Syria to counter the new threat. In many ways this could be the best recruiting tool the fledgling caliphate could have hoped for, the only move they would have appreciated more is America sending troops (thank you, Vladmir). As despicable as Assad is, and he is a brutally repressive Shiite minority leader, he is nothing compared to the foreign nationals who brought their jets, tanks and guns to prop him up.

Putin should have looked at the American experience in Iraq to see the scene list for this play. If that seems too remote to apply perhaps he should study the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Despite an overwhelming superiority in weaponry and a mutual border things did not proceed as planned.

This may not be the Mujahideen, but it is the same brand. And they will fight just as furiously. And Russian forces will be bogged down in protracted war against an enemy with no plans to engage in a set piece battle.

So, what does Putin have to gain? He can prop up Assad, but for how long, only a little bit longer than he is willing to stay, without Russian might there is little hope for the brutal despot.

Does he think all of that might is going to scare ISIS into a full scale retreat? Of course not, there is nothing in recent history that would support that conclusion. For all his weaknesses Putin is not stupid.

Is it just the need to intervene, and be a world power, that drove this decision. The same old game, on a different field, with a new opponent. The game that quit working years ago?  Sooner or later, there will be "peace with honor," and a hasty retreat. But how many will have to die before?

If Russia wants to be seen as part of the solution they will pressure Assad to step down. ISIS will only be defeated by an Arab solution. Rescuing a war criminal with a history of slaughtering Sunnis is not the solution the Syrians need. Syria is being destroyed from within, civilians, those that survive, are facing unimaginable nightmares. Democracy never comes from the barrel of a gun, no matter how large. As painful as it seems democracy is going to require distasteful compromise with unsavory people, that is how it always works.