Good cop, bad cop

Russians, Syrians jump on Kerry's proposal
After reading the WaPo’s story on the developments surrounding the US threat to bomb Syrian government military facilities in response to the Aug. 21, 2013, chemical attack that killed anywhere from 350 to 1400 Syrian civilians in a rebel-held area, I am so struck by the proposition that either President Obama and US Secretary of State John Kerry either have been played like a fiddle by the Russians or there was a whole lot of colluding going on to convince the Assad regime that it was in its best interest to divest itself of chemical weapons before the rebels seized them.

This is playing out like an old-fashioned crime movie, with the Russians playing the good cop and the US playing the bad cop. You know the scene where the perp is in the interrogation room and they are trying to get him to turn state’s evidence. The bad cop goes and threatens to wreak holy hell on the perp if he doesn’t turn over on his buddies in crime. The good cop comes in, offers the perp a cigarette and gets all buddy buddy with him. Warning that if he doesn't do the reasonable thing, the good cop won’t be able to protect him from the evils of the bad cop.

Bingo, the guy flips and tells all.

Now, if I was a conspiracy buff, it would seem awfully suspicious that Russian President Putin and US President Obama just happened to be at a joint meeting last week (the G-20 summit) and went to great lengths to put on a show how they couldn’t stand each other. And Kerry has his head together with his Russian counterpart where someone accidentally raises the concept. Nothing official mind you, just what do you think kind of thing.

Then, the week ends with Obama rattling the US saber as loudly as he can, but he backs off a bit to say: well, let me take this up with Congress. Over the weekend, all the talk is about trying to get Congress and the American people to buy into an act of war against Syria. Well, the media war began long ago, but that is beside the point.

Anyway, Deputy Sheriff Kerry, on his way home from a meeting with his European Union counterparts, holds a press conference and in apparent off-hand response to a question about what could avert a US attack, he say: well, if Syria would get rid of all its chemical weapons and put them under international (read UN) control in a week, then all would be hunky dory but … that’s not going to happen.

The next thing, the good cop deputy is calling the bad cop deputy and saying we got a deal and goes public with it.  By the time Deputy Kerry is on the ground, everybody knows and everybody who doesn’t want the bad cop to do anything is running around trying to figure out how they can make it happen.

Now, I am not saying this is the way things went down. I am not saying it is going to work. I am saying it does tend to make you think it might be what is going down and people in leadership positions are actually smarter than we think.

Or it really could just be another gaffe from the Obama Administration that the Russians are using for their gain and the detriment of the US.

Life is interesting, isn’t it?

Excellent analysis of Russian foreign policy

Reading material:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18462813

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18642032

As an observer of the world, much of which is distressing to me … the world does seem to be going to hell in a hand-basket rather rapidly … it is hard not to notice what is going on in Syria.

Of course, what can other countries do? Not much because, as usual, there are forces at work that are more important to some key people than the tragedy that is going on in Syria. Not that these forces are not understandable, because they are quite understandable.

In the first article, which is probably the best explanation of why the current Russian government is acting the way it is, Moscow under Putin does not want to see any precedent set in international relations that has it endorsing the interference with the internal sovereignty under some nebulous “responsibility to protect” “civilians.” IF Putin did, then the same concept possibly could be applied to restive populations in Russia and that would never do.

I think that one of the hardest things to explain to Americans is that the rest of the world just doesn’t think like Americans do. And because people in different countries view things from entirely different perspectives, things that are objectionable in the US are relatively acceptable in other countries. (see Horsemeat).

In addition, different countries are ruled/governed in different ways. Most countries are held to different standards. Unfortunately, what is acceptable in the US (and a lot of countries based on the European Occidental Judeo-Christian model) is not always acceptable in other countries and vice-versa.

One must remember that all countries act in what they perceive to be their own best interest. In that sense, the people who run those countries are no different than any other human on the planet. How they arrive at what they perceive to be their own best interest often will be baffling to someone not steeped in the culture and history of the particular country’s leadership but in the end, they will be doing what they perceive to be right and in their best interest.

Such is the case with what Moscow is doing in Syria … and also what Iran is doing in Syria. Of course, you could also say what the Turks and the Saudis and the other Arabian Peninsula nations who have taken side with the rebels.

The classic example of this, to me, is Operation Desert Storm. While it probably was in the best interest of world had the US-led coalition gone on to Baghdad and taken out Saddam Hussein in 1991, it couldn’t happen because a large chunk of the coalition’s fighters were Arab monarchs and dictators. They did not want to see the U.S. go around knocking off sovereign heads of state, even if they were despicable tyrants who threatened what passes for regional peace in that part of the world. If the U.S. could do it to Iraq … well, they could do it to the other Arab monarchies and dictators. That they were determined was not going to happen and the Americans, not being their usually totally stupid selves, realized that going north of the Euphrates River and on to Baghdad was a line the coalition could not pass. We could romp and stomp through the relatively uninhabited portions of southern Iraq in pursuit of the forces that held Kuwait and those that supported them. As it was, we pushed the limits of the envelope to restore the government of Kuwait far beyond what that relatively simple mission could have taken. Granted the fight would have been much bloodier for the coalition, but the result would have been the same in the end. However, going into the heartland of Iraq would be a bridge too far for the Arab allies and the European forces very likely would have found their erstwhile allies turning their coats and becoming hostiles on their flanks and in their rear. Not a good situation at all.

So, as you watch the Russians ship arms and equipment to Syria in the midst of sanctions and civil war, remember: Moscow is doing it because it sees it as in its best interest to be doing so.

Random Thoughts 10

I have been doing my usual thing of reviewing the news on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, BBC, Al Jazeera, and commentary from the Drudge Report and Neil Boortz (He is an Atlanta-based talk-show host who actually went to the same high school I did ... although he was ahead of me by four or five years) and have a whole bunch of random thoughts ... well some are related.

It was interesting to read that Russian President Putin picked a relatively political unknown as prime minister to lead a caretaker government until the parliamentary elections in November and the presidential elections early next year. The thing that most interests me is whether Putin will just leave office (as he is barred from seeking a third term) and pass the reins of power to a successor yet to be determined. That will be the true test of democracy in Russia.. Another thing that sort of amazed me ... here the Russians are a few short months from having an election for president and like nobody is campaigning for the job ... this seems weird, especially when we look at the U.S. where it is like 14 months before the election and still six months before the primary mess begins (I will not digress on that as I think I already have) and most of what is on the news is about the two mobs seeking to become their party’s candidate. It makes one wonder what it going on in Russia these days.

Then, of course, the Russians had to set off a massive fuel-air bomb that was four times more powerful than the reported force of the U.S. MOAB bomb that uses basically the same technology. I think we just reverted back to the 1950s with a schoolyard demonstration of our bomb is bigger than your bomb.

Then there was the item about the Japanese prime minister saying he was stepping down. It is interesting to see the Japanese leadership fall on their swords in traditional fashion when things are not going well for their party. It also is one of the drawbacks of parliamentary systems ... government’s tend to fall all too often which leads to a certain amount of instability. I still think fixed terms are better ... more stable, even if the national media in the U.S. seems to start the campaign for the next election the day after the voters finish voting.

Then there was the massive earthquake down in Indonesia ... I imagine the first questions asked by Bush upon hearing this was: where is the nearest American aircraft carrier; where is the nearest American Marine/Navy amphibious ready group; and where are the Mercy/Comfort/Hope, the hospital ships. Once more, I suspect American forces will leap into the breach with little fanfare or recognition. Such is the way of things.

Last but not least, there is the “Patreaus Report.”

First, it really contained nothing new, nothing unexpected. All the usual suspects said all the usual things and things are pretty much status quo ante. However, I would recommend reading an Al Jazeera analysis for the story (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/160735B8-6995-44FA-9891-274A29CF60E5.htm) for the “Arab” take on the story.

Another recommendation would be to read Newt Gingrich’s take on the report (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200709/POL20070911a.html) which I happen to agree with (for the most part). I respect Gingrich as a historian, political theorists and a political bomb thrower, but he has made too many enemies to be an effective leader and his public persona has been ground down to where he really seems to be fringe character these days. That is a long way from his heady days as Speaker of the House. Still, in this case, I think his assessment is right on the mark. Our political leaders have taken the eye off the ball and have lost sight at whom the enemy really is, how it fights and how long this “war” really is going to go on. That is the problem and it is going to sink us. No one seems to have a vision of how to fight this World War IV (WWIII was the Cold War) or at least no one really has articulated a vision how to fight it. Iraq is just one front and, from the comments and actions from one side of the U.S. political spectrum, it is a front that the U.S. has no right to win on. We are just throwing away troops and money on a lost cause. Which leads me to ask what cause they would be willing to invest the lives of our troops and the wherewithal and resources to equip and supply them. Right now, short of tanks on the beach at Atlantic City or Newport Beach or Padre Island or tanks rolling across the desert toward Tucson or El Paso or Austin ... or across the bridge and through the tunnel between Windsor and Detroit, I don’t think some Americans think that military force is acceptable ... and I imagine in those cases they would be screaming that the U.S. just needed to negotiate in good faith and confess all its sins and give its wealth away to atone for those sins. I really believe that these people have lost track of the fact that the world they live in is not the same world the rest of us live in. To them I would say: There really are people out there who don’t care if an American is a liberal/progressive or a conservative, a Democrat or a Republican, worker or management; all they care about is that they intend to kill Americans and do harm to America in any way they possibly can.

It is beyond me how these Americans - as intelligent and as educated as I know them to be - can’t understand that America – the United States – is the object of a love/hate relationship with the rest of the world. For the most part, the rest of the world loves this idealized image of the U.S. and its culture as it is spread through books and magazines, TV and movies, CDs and DVDs, but, at the same time, it hates the U.S. culture because it is not their culture. It also hates the Americans because they keep demonstrating that they don’t really live up to the idealized but artificial image of who and what Americans are.

Yes, Americans can be arrogant ... but so can any other nationality you can name that is proud of their nation and their culture. American “exceptionalism” is not so exceptional, except for the fact that the American system is the most successful in history in providing for needs of its citizens. Look, even the poorest of Americans have a standard of living that far outstrips the poor in other countries. This is not to belittle the poverty (mostly of spirit) that can be found in the U.S., but it is to point out that there are very few, in reality, in the U.S. who lives in the grinding poverty that can be found in most Third World countries and even in some developed countries. This wealth is why a lot of the world resents Americans; that and the fact we keep telling people that if they would just follow our example, it, too, could be theirs. That plus the fact that we often fail to live up to our own ideals and standards, which makes others ask how can we follow such a flawed example.

Nuff ranting for now.