Day: August 27, 2013
An argument I would expect to lose
As the President contemplates the military options for Syria, advice from the commentariat is disparate. Richard Haass would like targeted and time-limited strikes. Eliot Cohen wants a much broader and sustained attack. The difference is all about goals, as Rob Satloff rightly says, and I imagine most of the discussion inside the Administration is also.
While much of the news coverage is concerned with which weapons will be used against which targets and when, the military options need to serve broader goals. Here are the obvious possibilities:
1. Punish the Asad regime for its use of chemical weapons and deter it from another chemical attack.
Punishment and deterrence are on almost everyone’s list. The problem is that we don’t know what it will take to deter the regime from even greater use of chemical weapons. Escalation is a serious possibility. It was Milosevic’s initial reaction to the NATO bombing in 1999. He accelerated ethnic cleansing of Albanians from Kosovo. Bashar al Asad might do likewise, even attacking Israel or just throwing as many chemical weapons at his opponents as possible, in an effort to use them before losing them. To achieve the goal, President Obama has to be prepared to escalate in return if that happens.
2. Restore and enhance American credibility, not only as seen from Damascus but also as seen from Tehran.
Enhancing credibility requires something more: Tehran would need to see the attacks not only as punishing but also as highly effective in hitting the right targets, even when they are well hidden or under ground. Shock and awe will not be sufficient. Accuracy and effectiveness will be needed. Otherwise the credibility of an American attack on the Iranian nuclear program will suffer, making it far less likely that a negotiated solution will be found.
3. Tilt the battlefield back toward the Syrian opposition, enabling it to hold its own against regime security forces so a negotiated end to the war has some chance of success.
Tilting the battlefield is a far broader goal requiring a willingness to attack many more targets (Syrian air force, Scuds and command, control and communications) and to continue for as long as it might take. Some argue that it can be achieved more readily by arming the “right” opposition, but that has proven cumbersome and difficult. It will be difficult to know when the goal has been achieved, as declarations by the regime of willingness to negotiate are already cheaper by the dozen. It will also be difficult to followup a successful negotiated outcome in a way that serves US interests.
4. Enable the opposition to win.
This would require an open-ended commitment, like the one NATO eventually made in Libya to destroy the Qaddafi regime. Bomb until he is gone. Few are arguing for this in Washington, even if many hope it will happen.
Everything depends on a clear directive from the President (known in this context as the National Command Authority) specifying what the United States is trying to achieve. That will shape the diplomacy, consultations with Congress, public affairs, choice of weapons, targeting, duration, and willingness to escalate, as well as the cost, collateral damage, damage to relations with Russia and China and other negative consequences.
So far as I am able to tell, the President has not yet made this vital decision, but he clearly leans in the narrower, shorter, direction. 1 and 2 are likely the most appealing to him. It wouldn’t be worth doing anything without achieving those goals. His past reluctance suggests he won’t go for 4, which would be hard to sustain and even harder to follow up if it were achieved.
The big question is 3, which the State Department will argue for but the Pentagon will likely say is a bridge too far, and a hard one to target at that. I’d lean with State, because long-term US interests in Syria require that the war end sooner rather than later, but I would anticipate losing the argument.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Yes, I was there and then is now
This piece was republished today, the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, by Buzzfeed under the heading “I Was At The March On Washington 50 Years Ago,” with my enthusiastic concurrence:
Eighteen years old in August 1963, I had spent the summer after high school graduation working in a factory, commuting by bike the five miles or so from where I was staying with a friend. I don’t remember my decision to go to the March, but I do remember my racist aunt calling my mother the night before and trying to get her to stop me. There would be violence, Aunt Betty was sure, and who knows what kind of trouble.
That appeal fell on deaf ears. My mother was a committed advocate of integration, which had been an issue for years in my hometown of New Rochelle, New York. My father, until he died in 1961, was an activist and successful opponent of “blockbusting”: the real estate agents’ practice of scaring whites to move by implying that the neighborhood was “turning,” thus fulfilling their own prophecy and collecting lots of commissions. A Federal court had found two years earlier that the Lincoln School half a mile from our house had been intentionally segregated and eventually ordered remedies. This, people, was hundreds of miles north of the Mason-Dixon line.
I was already dating a “Negro” girl, in the terminology of the time. That wasn’t common (nor was it common when we married five years later and remained married until today). I confess it had taken me years to work up the courage to ask her out. She was away that summer and did not go on the March. But surely the sense I had that the March was the right place to be was connected to my romantic interests, if only by worldview.
To get to Washington around 8 am in those days meant a 2 am rising in New Rochelle, no breakfast and a quick dash out of the house grabbing the brown paper lunch bag from the fridge. As the bus arrived in DC, I awakened to a strong fish smell. It was that brown paper bag. It wasn’t the one with my lunch. I don’t know what my family had for dinner, but I had little money in my pocket (no ATMs then) and was hungry much of the day.
We staged at Thomas Circle and marched from there singing and chanting to the Lincoln Memorial, where I found a good spot on the left of the reflecting pool under the trees. It was a happy but determined crowd. We knew the country was watching. We all dressed reasonably well, the “Negroes” better than the “whites” to look as respectable as possible. We knew there was an absolute need to avoid violence, but the issue never arose in my part of the march. There were just too many of us for anyone to tangle with. The racists, who were many in that day in Washington, stayed home.
Solidarity was the overwhelming feeling. The weather was beautiful and the mood was good, but this was no picnic. It was a determined and disciplined protest. “We Shall Overcome” was the anthem. The New York Times reporter who quoted me in Saturday’s paper asked whether I was surprised that celebrities like Peter, Paul and Mary and Bob Dylan sang. No, that was no surprise: they had been part of “the movement.” The answer, my friend, was blowing in the wind.
A word about the concept of race at the time of the March, which was clearly organized and led by Bayard Rustin and A. Philip Randolph. In the terminology of the time, they were “Negroes,” not yet blacks or African Americans. The concept of “whites” is likewise an anachronism. I didn’t regard myself as part of a white majority then (nor do I really now). The majority then was WASP: white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. As a Jew whose grandparents immigrated from Russia and Russian-occupied Poland, I was in none of those three categories. I was a minority. The barriers to Jews (quotas in universities, prohibitions in clubs and limitations in employment) had only recently come down. The affinity of Jews for the civil rights movement was strong.
The March on Washington was important to us because it was a massive show of support to those who wanted to end segregation, which was more the rule than the exception. It was inconsistent with what the marchers understood as the founding creed: all men are created equal (the question of women was posed later). “Jobs and freedom” meant an end to discrimination on the basis of skin color in a society still based on racial separation. It was a radical proposition. I learned only this week that the even the police force in DC was still segregated, with no mixed patrols.
Segregation did not end during the March on Washington, as some would like to imagine. The struggle continued even more intensely after August 1963. The bombing of the 16th Street Batist Church in Birmingham came just two weeks or so later. James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Mickey Schwerner, who was the son of my high school biology teacher, were murdered in Philadelphia, Mississippi the next June. I had wanted to spend the summer there but yielded to my mother’s entreaties and instead earned some much-needed cash doing research at Yale. New Haven was still mostly segregated, especially schools and housing. I imagine it still is to some extent.
I was sitting down in the street in Cambridge, Maryland in 1964 in support of people trying to end school and housing segregation in what was known then as the Delmarva peninsula (not the Eastern Shore). Delmarva was more akin to the deep South than the northeast when it came to segregation. The state-mobilized National Guard blocked our march there with fixed bayonets, wearing gas masks. The protest leadership decided not to test their will to use them. I’ve never regretted that.
Once MLK and RFK were murdered in 1968, the civil rights movement lost steam to the anti-Vietnam War movement. I got my first whiff of tear gas protesting at Fort Dix in 1969 and tested the patience of army officers at my physical in 1970. The civil rights movement ended prematurely, befuddled by weakened leadership and dissension within the black community (as it came to be called), some of which toyed with violence while others tried to move further in the direction of economic justice.
Another ten years of MLK leading the challenge to the American reality would have done a lot more good than the lionizing of him now. In housing, schooling and the economy the sharp divides between blacks and whites have not disappeared. Some have even widened. The mechanisms of segregation are no longer overt and direct, but they are effective and persistent. No one can hope to do what Bull Connor and George Wallace did once upon a time, but voter ID laws are just a more sophisticated version of a particular group’s desire to keep America in the hands of people who look, behave and vote like them.
Still, things have changed for the better. I can hope that the voter ID laws will mobilize massive minority participation in the states that pass them. I am pleased my children have had opportunities that would have been denied a generation earlier. My wife and I married in the year after the Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s prohibition on interracial marriage, though we were unaware of the decision at the time. Today we travel the length and breadth of America without worrying about being lynched. And yes, President Obama embodies the ideals of August 28, 1963.
But we still need to make sure we treat all people as the equals they are. Then is now.
RSS - Posts
