Category: Uncategorized
Who should the US back in Syria?
The rapid advance in the past week of Syrian opposition forces raises difficult questions for the United States. The leadership of those forces lies with Hayat Tahrir al Sham (HTS), a designated terrorist group. The US already cooperates with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which include Syrian Kurds aligned with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). It is also a designated terrorist group that operates inside Turkey. Turkey backs opposition forces in Syria generally termed the Syrian National Army (SNA), which control Afrin under the command of the Turkish Army.
Too many friends
The US cooperates with the SDF because it helps fight against the Islamic State (IS), still another designated terrorist group. HTS has also been effective against IS as well as Al Qaeda in the territory it has controlled for several years in northwestern Syria.
HTS’ leader, Abu Mohammad al-Julani, has been trying for years to soften his group’s jihadist rhetoric. He has sent messages in recent days to Syrian Christians, Kurds, and Alawites suggesting that they will not be mistreated in HTS-controlled territory. He has also indicated HTS will step back from governance, which it will delegate to an interim authority with broad representation. Its Syrian Salvation Government in Idlib province has administered the territory HTS controls there for several years.
Turkiye, a NATO ally, is unhappy that the Americans cooperate with the Kurdish-led SDF. Washington has tried to soften Ankara’s attitude toward the Syrian Kurds for years, to no avail. Turkiye wants the SDF pushed east of the Euphrates River and at least 30 kilometers from the Turkish border. Hundreds of thousands of Kurds are said to be on the move.
Israel, another de facto US ally, won’t be happy to see jihadists conquering Syria. The damage Israel has wreaked on President Assad’s Syrian Arab Army, Lebanese Hezbollah, and Iranian forces is one of the reasons HTS has been able to advance, but Netanyahu is not going to be greeting al-Julani with open arms. He, and perhaps Biden, had hopes that Assad would cut, or at least diminish, his ties to Iran.
So how should the US lean in this complicated situation? With the Turks against the SDF? That isn’t possible without abandoning the fight against IS. With HTS against Assad? That would risk helping a group the Israelis fear may have less benign intentions than its current behavior suggests. With Assad against HTS? That could wreck prospects for a transition in Syria that the US has backed for more than a decade. It would also preserve an ally of Russia and Iran who has brutalized his own population.
Creating new options
If the current options don’t look good, perhaps the right approach is to create new ones. America doesn’t have enough troops in Syria (maybe 1500, depending on how you count) to command the situation. But Washington could lean one way or another to open up better options. This could be better than the current policy paralysis, which has failed to take advantage of a situation that could spell defeat for Russia and Iran.
The Turkish-backed forces in Syria want to chase the Kurds from Manbij, on the western side of the Euphrates. That is a fight that could split the opposition to Assad and give him a new lease on power. The US should encourage the Kurds to withdraw east of the Euphrates and duck a fight they are not likely to win.
The Syrian Arab Army (Assad’s army) will want to withdraw its forces from central Syria to meet these threats. There are still IS remnants in central Syria. The US should press SDF, after withdrawal form Manbij, to fill this vacuum and continue its fight against IS.
HTS and its allies today took Hama, south of Aleppo. Both Homs and the Mediterranean provinces of Tartous and Latakia, where many Alawites live, are now at risk. Risings against Assad could facilitate HTS takeovers. Damascus could be next.
The US could communicate to HTS that Washington would be willing to see creation of an interim government not only in Aleppo but also at the national level. Washington could then work with that government, provided it behaves in a civilized way, rather than HTS directly, in planning for the future of Syria.
What does the US gain?
Success of the rebellion against Assad would be a serious defeat for Russia and Iran, which have backed Assad through more than 13 years of civil war. It would be foolish to imagine the result will be Western-style democracy. But even an outcome (without all the interim steps please!) like Iraq’s current non-autocratic mishmash would be better than the homicidal regime that has governed Syria since the rebellion started in 2011.
PS: And Assad comes down:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
To tweet or not, that is the question
I am now beginning to post on Bluesky, the latest competitor of X/Twitter. I have profiles on Threads and Post, but I haven’t used them. Those two competitors never took off.
I don’t know if Bluesky will either. But the election results stimulated an exodus of interesting people from Twitter. They are mostly Democrats and never-Trump Republicans. I haven’t run into any Trumpkins there.
Why leave Twitter?
The arguments for leaving Twitter are strong. Its owner and operator is a billionaire Trump enthusiast and financier. The platform has been favoring pro-Trump views and slighting anti-Trump posts. Its revenue and usage is down sharply since he sliced staff, raised fees, and all but eliminated moderation,. Except for his political opponents of course. The number of American users is down. Trolling is up. For many people, the atmosphere has become toxic.
Bluesky is providing a far more friendly environment. Its algorithm is not slighting Democrats or promoting conflict. Discussion there can be vigorous, but not not nearly as poisonous as on Twitter. It is free and does not intend to allow advertising.
Why not leave Twitter?
That said, I am not planning to leave Twitter soon. There are several reasons.
First of course is the accumulation of more than 7000 followers for @DanielSerwer. That is an important entry point for www.peacefare.net. It will be a long time before I can gain even a fraction of that on Bluesky.
Second, many of my followers are not Americans. Few non-Americans have joined Bluesky, which is the product of the polarized political environment in the United States. It has more than 20 million users, which is extraordinary. But still a good deal less than Twitter/X’s 60 million Americans. Twitter/X has more than 350 million non-American users. I’ll gladly welcome non-Americans to Bluesky. But I suppose if they want to understand our politics, Twitter/X is more representative.
Third, I regret the loss of a common space, even one tainted with toxicity. Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, argues on Twitter/X that it is better to stay to debate issues than self-isolate in a friendlier environment. Trolls deserve a chance to show they can be sensible. And to tell the truth, they haven’t much plagued me. I’ve blocked very few people all these years (I joined Twitter in 2010).
Yes, Tweet, but Bluesky as well.
So on balance I prefer to do both Twitter/X and Bluesky, at least for now. Twitter in its heyday was an extraordinary way to talk with the world. I wish it had remained that way. Or that some public-spirited billionaire would put Musk out of his misery and buy it. S/he could then fix the algorithm and moderate the content.
But that isn’t happening. So I’ll migrate to Bluesky gradually, keeping my presence and activity on Twitter/X as well. It’s a burden, but not an unbearable one.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Trump likes incompetence and chaos
Marco Rubio and Michael Waltz, the projected Secretary of State and National Security Advisor respectively, are fig leaves. Trump proposed them first to hide the ugly reality that followed.
Lowering the bar
His aim is to name people who will make him seem normal. This is difficult. He is a rapist and convicted felon who improperly stored classified material and imperiled US security. As President, Trump cozied up to Putin and incited a riot against the 2020 election result. He ran his businesses in ways that infringed on legal requirements and drove them into bankruptcy.
In this context, Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Hegseth, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Matt Gaetz fit well.
Gabbard, the nominee for Director of National Intelligence, is also a Putin sycophant and flak for Syrian President Assad.
Hegseth, the Fox News nominee for Defense Secretary, is a Christian nationalist and womanizer. He has no visible qualifications for the job except service in the Army as a major. The US Army has more than 16,000 of those.
Kennedy, nominated to lead Health and Human Services, is a flake. His “Make America Healthy Again” website doesn’t bother with discussion of the issues he is interested in. It goes straight to selling swag. In his bio, it highlights his environmental activism, entirely out of tune with Trump. But he is an anti-vaccine activist as well, claiming that all he wants is good scientific data. But he ignores the excellent scientific data already available on vaccines.
Matt Gaetz has sex with underage women, some of whom he pays for the privilege. His nomination for Attorney General was worthy of Trump. Sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein claimed Trump made a sport of sleeping with his friends’ wives. Gaetz has now withdrawn his name. Maybe Trump will give him a position that doesn’t need confirmation.
Normally when a nomination doesn’t succeed a president will pick someone less prone to controversy. I suppose the choice of Pam Bondi, former Florida Attorney General, might be seen that way. But she is ethically challenged and may not stand up well under intense scrutiny.
Exaggerating what he can do
While lowering the bar for personnel, Trump is also boasting about the incredible things he will achieve. He aims to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. His billionaire friends will cut trillions in government expenditure. He will end the Ukraine war in 24 hours.
Much of this is not going to happen. Here too Trump is setting a bar. While on personnel he sets it low, on policy he sets it high. The moves he favors on immigrants and government expenditure will generate thousands of lawsuits. The stimulus to the legal profession will be unprecedented.
The result will be chaos, something Trump enjoys. He will use it to claim extraordinary powers for the presidency. He disdains democracy and seeks unfettered power. The current Supreme Court majority, which has already given him immunity from prosecution for official acts, will back him wholeheartedly.
Encouraging international chaos
On the foreign policy front, it is harder to predict the outcome. But let’s try.
If Trump ends military aid, Kyiv will have to negotiate an unsatisfactory outcome with Moscow. The result will be partition. Russia will keep most of the territory it occupies now. The Europeans will have to patrol a demilitarized zone. And rump Ukraine will face a prolonged period of instability as the Russians wage hybrid warfare against Kyiv.
Irredentist ambitions will explode worldwide. Serbia will aim to gain territory in the Balkans. China will continue its expansion in the East and South China Seas, and set its sights on Taiwan. Russia will try for Moldova and Georgia. India and Pakistan may go at it over Kashmir. Israel will annex whatever it wants of the West Bank and Gaza.
There are about 150 outstanding border disputes worldwide. Even if only a handful get worse, the international community will have a hard time managing them.
The President can impose tariffs without Congressional approval. They will re-ignite inflation in the US and have a devastating effect on the US and world economies. That will cause the Fed to slow the decline of interest rates, or maybe raise them again. Other countries will retaliate against US goods, slowing the US economy further. Even without the tariffs, the US expansion that started with Obama
A difficult four years
Trump will relish this chaos as well. But it is not good for the United States, which can barely manage one serious crisis at a time.
The current US expansion started during Obama’s presidency, in the aftermath of the financial crisis. Except for the COVID-19 recession Trump aggravated with an inept response to the epidemic, it has continued unabated since. Even without Trump’s chaos, the expansion would be unlikely to last much longer.
We are in for a difficult four years. Tighten you seat belt.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Requiem for the world order
The post-World War II liberal order was already shaky. The past four American presidents have all contributed to undermining it. Clinton bombed Serbia without UN Security Council authorization. W mistakenly invaded Iraq in 2003. Obama neglected to nurture the 2011 Arab Spring, especially in Syria but also in Egypt. Biden gave unconditional support to an Israeli government that has violated the laws of war. Putin has pitched in with his 2003 invasion of Georgia as well as his 2014 and 2022 invasions of Ukraine. Xi is conducting rehearsals for war with Taiwan.
Trump will bulldoze the foundations
But none of that has quite destroyed the world order. Trump will enjoy that privilege. He has already said he will cut a deal with Russia on Ukraine. The only way to do that is to stop assistance and surrender Ukrainian territory to Moscow. That will undermine NATO, even if he doesn’t withdraw from the Alliance.
Trump has no inclination to defend Taiwan. He has suggested South Korea and Japan should get their own nuclear weapons so the US can withdraw its troops. Trump will give carte blanche to Israel in Gaza and Lebanon. He will aim to reduce American troops in the Middle East, no matter what the consequences. A Trump Administration will do nothing to support democracy in the Middle East or elsewhere.
There is a big question mark on Iran. It is already a nuclear threshold state. It would need no more than weeks to obtain enough enriched uranium to make at least one nuclear weapon. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is spoiling for war with Iran. Biden has tried to restrain that impulse. He made it clear the US would not support more than the tit-for-tat exchanges of the past few months.
Would Trump continue to restrain Netanyahu? Or would he extend his unconditional support to war with Iran? If he does, any remaining foundations of the world order will be in smithereens.
The man of peace
Trump keeps on repeating he wants the fighting to stop in Ukraine. He claims to be a man of peace. But peace is not something you get when you concede to aggression or when you support it. Peace in Ukraine will require more support to Kyiv. Peace in Gaza and Lebanon will require constraints on Netanyahu. Trump appears poised to do precisely the opposite.
The implications of what Trump does will be wide and deep. Conceding to Putin in Ukraine will lead to future wars. Partition of Moldova, Bosnia, and Kosovo will follow. Invasions of the Baltics and Poland could be next. Supporting Netanyahu in Gaza and Lebanon will lead to future Palestinian or Lebanese efforts like October 7.
There is precious little any of us can do about this. American presidents have enormous leeway in foreign policy. Once he dismantles the Foreign Service and the Defense Department civil service, there will be no “deep state” resistance.
The precedent
The last time the US withdrew its commitment to world order was in the 1920s and 1930s. Republican Party isolationism then prevailed over Woodrow Wilson’s commitment to the League of Nations. America Firsters waved Nazi flags at Madison Square Garden. The US clamped down on immigration and hiked tariffs. The Nazis copied American racism. World War II was one of the results.
The world order will not be the only victim of the next Trump Administration. A lot of Americans will eventually die to stem the authoritarian resurgence his election will encourage. We acted reluctantly and too late against Germany and Japan. We are likely to delay too long this time around as well. The price for “peace in our time” can be astronomical.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
All good, until it’s not, in Atlanta
I am now past my second week of outside poll watching in Atlanta (Fulton County). Minus three days off for a jaunt to Boston to give a talk at the Harvard Graduate School of Design. By my count, I’ve now spot-checked 21 of the 34 early voting centers in the county. I’ve been to a couple more than once.
No wait no mess
I’m delighted to report that I have continued to find nothing to complain about. The early voting centers are adequately staffed and equipped. I haven’t found more than a 15-minute line anywhere. All the polling center managers say they haven’t had a longer line since early voting started.
That’s despite the record numbers of people voting. More than half of the number of people who voted in Georgia in 2020 have already voted. Most people exiting report that voting took no more than 5 minutes. None have registered complaints with me.
The Georgia Democratic Party has been concerned that polling centers post notices citing the disqualification of two candidates. All the polling centers I’ve visited display the notices prominently, along with the ballot, both inside and outside.
Four of the polling centers have had individual police officers stationed discreetly outside. I saw no indication voters felt intimidated or inhibited from voting. None of the police officers reported any incidents.
It would be hard not to conclude that Fulton County knows what it is doing and has done it well.
A long way to go
Of course there is a long way ahead. Early voting continues through November 1. Vote review panels are starting this week. Those are the panels that decide on a voter’s intention if it is not clear on the ballot. They also supervise duplication of ballots that can’t be machine read. I’ll have my first opportunity to contribute to those processes Friday, in Hall County north of Atlanta.
I am expecting an assignment to poll watch inside a polling center, also in Hall County, for election day. I am also expecting for this week assignments to ballot count monitoring. That is likely to continue for a few days after November 5.
The controversies to come
The process so far looks good to me. But that of course doesn’t mean that there aren’t problems. And even if there aren’t problems, some people will want to invent some. No one should imagine that Donald Trump is going to take a loss in Georgia without protest. He no doubt has both his mouth and his lawyers ready to complain about fraud if he loses. If he wins, he’ll extol the process.
The people voting so far in Georgia are disproportionately women. This spells trouble for the Republicans, joy for the Democrats. But of course the percentage could be reversed this week or on election day. And you really can’t tell how people vote when you ask them how the process went. Nor are there enough lawn signs or other indicators to tell you anything meaningful.
The Georgia state election board is still resolving quite a few issues, some in court. That is due to a MAGA takeover, which has put election deniers in charge. They are still trying to change the process. That is outrageous while the voting is taking place and so close to Election Day. When the courts refuse their proposals, they will no doubt complain that the election wasn’t fair.
It’s all good, until it’s not.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Decent v indecent: you know what I mean
The choice in the American presidential election is a simple one. One candidate is decent. The other is indecent. This is true in many areas.
The economy
Trump mismanaged the COVID-19 epidemic and tanked the economy. Biden revived it. It is now growing more strongly than the pre-COVID rate.
The US economy is outpacing other countries:
Trump gave tax cuts to the rich that were expensive and did not deliver on his promises.
Biden has been really good for manufacturing:
If those aren’t enough reasons to vote for Harris, here’s another one for those in red states. Your economies depend far more on government programs than those of blue states:
Trump aims to cut those programs, give more tax breaks to the wealthy, and pay for them with tariffs the poor will shoulder more than the rich:
Immigration
Comparison of Trump’s and Biden’s immigration policies is complicated. But the numbers of illegal crossings surged during the Biden Administration as the COVID-19 pandemic receded:
The percentage of the US population that is immigrant is close to the earlier peak in 1890:
But deportations under Biden have been higher than under Trump:
More important: the US needs workers and entrepreneurs. Those immigrants Trump wants to deport open about a quarter of the new businesses in the US each year. The US has had more job openings than unemployed workers since 2018, except for the period of the pandemic:
Massive deportation would make the shortage of workers worse, reigniting inflation (along with the Trump tariffs). Immigrants have had lower crime rates than the US-born for at least 150 years. There is simply no moral, economic, or law enforcement reason for mass deportations, which would be violent and expensive.
Social issues
I can understand people who don’t like the idea of abortion. I don’t like it either. But that is not the issue. The issue is who should decide whether to end a pregnancy. I can’t imagine anyone more appropriate to do that that the pregnant woman herself, particularly if it is done before the fetus can survive. That was what Roe v Wade allowed. It should be allowed again, in all states. Anything less than that is bound to lead to confusion and strife. Governments should have a strictly limited role.
I don’t worry too much about the movement to ban books in libraries, even though the number of challenges is rising sharply:
I’m sure banning will guarantee books are read more rather than less.
But I do worry about the efforts to limit what schools teach, particularly about slavery and racism. Slavery was an abominable institution that tortured millions of people and killed many of them. No one should graduate from an American high school without that understanding. Students should also understand that enslavement of Africans was vital to America’s–and the world’s–economy for several hundred years before it was abolished. The wealth it produced is still in the hands of descendants of those who did not produce it. I’m not sure what we can do about that, but we should all appreciate the facts.
Foreign policy
The main foreign policy differences are all too apparent. Trump will back Israel to the hilt and surrender Ukraine (or part of it) to Russia. Harris will back Ukraine so long as the Ukrainians want to fight and try to restrain Israel. It is unclear what Trump would do about Taiwan. If he follows his own lead from Ukraine, he would hand it to China. Harris would likely follow Biden’s backing for the status quo against Chinese encroachments. On China, belligerence is bipartisan. Not much daylight between them.
More generally, Harris will back US NATO and Asian allies. Trump will try to wriggle free of alliance commitments.
In the past he has threatened NATO allies with letting them be attacked if they don’t ante up to 2% of GDP spent on defense by 2024. Today that means mainly Italy (where significant numbers of US troops are based), Spain, Portugal, Belgium (where NATO headquarters are located), Slovenia, and Croatia. The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine pushed the laggards over the 2% mark.
Trump has also suggested that Asian allies (South Korea and Japan) get their own nuclear weapons so that US forces can withdraw. That is a really bad idea.
Identity
Important as the issues above are, I suspect this election will come down to identity. The aging but wealthy heir Trump and the untested, fake hillbilly Vance are unabashed liars and fraudsters. They have tapped into a deep vein of white, especially male, supremacist feeling in the American population. It was always there, but they have allowed it to surface. Harris and Walz represent the opposite. The Vice President is an accomplished, well-educated Black woman running with an experienced white male as her second.
Many Americans won’t worry about the policy issues. They will vote on identity. Democrat v Republican, young v old, urban v suburban v rural, liberal v conservative, minority v majority, rich v poor. I hope they will also consider another dimension: decent v indecent. You know what I mean.
Please register and vote!
RSS - Posts
