A Step in the Right Direction: President Obama requests a Congressional Resolution on Syria

Unexpectedly the News Wires carried the White House Announcement that President Obama has decided to seek Congressional Approval Prior to bombing Syria or engaging in any Type of Military Conflict with Syria.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/31/20270696-obama-will-seek-congressional-approval-before-any-military-action-against-syria?lite

This would appear to signal a signficant Departure from what has been the Norm for several Prior Administrations, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and, most recently and most disastruously, Bush Jr., who managed to get the United States not in one but two Wars concurrently, one of which is still being fought.

By a strict Interpretation of the Constitution, the Power to declare War rests with Congress. Article 1, Section 8,

„The Congress shall have Power...to declare War.”

This was something which was observed with fairly consistent Regularity until 1941, when Congress declared War on Japan (8 December 1941) followed by Declarations of War on Germany and Italy.  There was even a Time, including up to the Vietnam War Era and beyond, when, officially, such Events were not referred to as Wars but rather Conflicts; obviously, because no War had been declared by Congress and, how could you be involved in a War if there is no Declaration of War?  Duhhhhh!

Over the Course of History, going to War has never been an easy Thing to get into and, often, not an easy Thing to get out of either, the Latter, even more so.

Witness the still on going Conflict in Afghanistan, the Mess in Iraq which is still going on, or earlier, the Vietnam Saga.  Back to Vietnam in a Moment.  First an interesting Footnote.  Although nobody thinks of it in those Terms, from a purely technical Point of View, until today, there is no Peace Treaty which has ever been signed between the United States and Japan or, for that Matter, between the United States and Germany or Italy ending World War II.

Vietnam.  Vietnam was a Situation all its own.  The Involvement began with President Kennedy and deepened under President Johnson.  Faced with a broadening Conflict, President Johnson went to Congress and obtained a Resolution (much as President Obama appears to be seeking now), known as „The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution” (7 August 1964) and proceded to justify all further Actions during the Vietnam Conflict based upon that Resolution.  Only two Senators (Wayne Morse was one of them), voted against it.  There was considerable Debate afterwards over what the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution authorised and what it didn't but one Thing is indisputable; President Johnson had a Resolution.  Nobody after him bothered, even if it meant getting embroiled into Conflicts which were just as messy, or even messier, in Terms of what President Obama was later to refer to as „Blood and Treasure.”

 

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution

The Situation in Syria is complex.  If one were to listen to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, President Assad of Syria should forcefully be removed immediately, by the United States, of course, with Turkey in a „Supporting Role.”  But it may be easier to speak from Ankara, especially if one doesn't have to pay the Bills.

President Bashar al Assad of Syria is not an Angel.  Far from one.  The Mess in his Country is enormous.  So is the Mess in his neighboring Countries, Egypt, Iraq and, yes, Turkey as well, to name a Few.

Despite what the Evidence laid out before President Obama may indicate, the Situation is complex and laden with Perils.  Moreover, as suggested by German Philosopher and Journalist Peter Scholl-Latour, the Evidence may lead different People to reach different Conclusions and this, with the United Nations Inspectors' Report yet to be made (Peter Scholl-Latour characterises a possible Military Intervention in Syria as senseless and dangerous).

http://www.tz-online.de/aktuelles/politik/scholl-latour-analysiert-syrien-drama-der-militaerschlag-sinnlos-gefaehrlich-tz-3081517.html

(in German)

But, back to President Obama.  Earlier, Critics noted that after „drawing a Line in the Sand” with Syria, he was not left with any good Choices.

As President Obama gets ready to head to Moscow, where the Chinese and others, not to mention President Putin, will also be, to take part in the 2013 G-20 Conference, the Decision to seek a Congressional Resolution on Syria effectively moves the Target Date from last Thursday (as it was urged on President Obama by some), to at least September 9, when Congress is scheduled to return to Washington after a „well deserved” Vacation.  Prime Minister David Cameron who was required to get a Resolution of Approval from the British House of Commons before committing to Military Action against Syria, surprised many, including, not the least of all, himself, by failing to get it.

Perhaps it would be nice for someone to send a Note to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan informing him that if he wishes to remove President Bashar al Assad all on his own, he is welcome to do it but, otherwise, he just needs to cool his Heels and wait until September 9 or maybe a Little later.

Secretary of State John Kerry - Attempting to diffuse Tensions with North Korea and Elsewhere

Former Massachusetts Senator, now Secretary of State John Kerry, was selected by President Obama at the Beginning of the Year to succeed Hillary Clinton's turbulent Reign.

John Kerry had come very close to becoming President of the United States, far closer than Hillary Clinton.  He lost the Election to George W. Bush in 2004 by only 34 or 35 Electoral Votes.  But lost he did and now, as soon as he became Secretary of State, one could sense the Difference in Tone which he established from the Onset.  He went to Afghanistan, an unsteady Ally which, in the Words of President Obama cost the United States „Blood and Treasure” in a non ostentatious Military Plane, rather than the Luxury Jetliner which Secretary Clinton relentlessly used during her Tenure.

 John Kerry arriving on a Military Plane in Kabul, Afghanistan for Talks with President Karzai

(February 2013)

Hillary Clinton arriving on the State Department's Luxurious Jetliner in Kabul, Afghanistan

for the Inauguration of President Karzai 

(Archive Photo)

Instead of „lecturing” President Karzai and letting a bad Situation becoming worse, Secretary of State Kerry showed real Diplomacy by seeking to calm down not only President Karzai but the entire Afghanistan Situation which remains extremely volatile and one in which the United States has decided, wisely, not to aimlessly throw any more „Blood and Treasure.”

But the Statemanship of Secretary of State Kerry and what distinguishes him sharply from former Secretary Clinton has become even more evident in recent Days, with the rapidly escalating Tensions with North Korea, where a Dictatorial Regime makes anything possible.

As Korean Dictator Kim Jong-Un unleashed one Verbal Escalation after another against the United States (and against South Korea as well), the Administration initially followed a Clintonesque „Tit for Tat” Series of Responses.  Then, the Secretary of State intervened.

He wisely saw that nothing good can come out of this, with Kim Jong-Un possibly willing to risk it all, including Nuclear Weapons, for a Conflict which the United States does not want and does not need.  Following a Series of uninterrupted Escalations and Threats, which still continue, North Korea has closed the Rajin-Sonbong Special Economic Zone to South Korea and, on Friday 5 April recommended that Germany and Russia, among other Countries, evacuate their Embassies in Pyonyang, the Capital of North Korea (Interestingly, we do not know if North Korea has asked China to evacuate its Embassy).

The Tone was neutralized; the United States Response was that Dialogue is still possible and that North Korea should consider taking down the Tone of its Escalations an Octave or two.  Secretary of State Kerry's thinking, we believe, is clear; obviously, North Korea could be defeated, „Bombed into the Stone Age” as the Late Senator B. Morris Goldwater may have put it some Decades ago but the Question is, does the United States need another Mess on its Hands.  We think Secretary Kerry may have quickly looked over the Situation (or perhaps he had done so long before he became Secretary of State); with the unfinished Business left in Afghanistan, a Mess in Iraq which President George W. Bush generously dumped on the Lap of his Successor and diplomatic Blunders by his Predecessor, Secretary Clinton in Egypt and elsewhere, he chose, wisely, to walk the higher Moral Ground, save Money and act with Deliberation.

One more Thing...Secretary of State Kerry, following the Example set by his Boss, President Obama, has decided to donate 5% of his Salary to Charitable Causes.

This stands in glaring Contrast with Secretary Clinton's Husband, former President Clinton, who, it is thought, amassed Millions (some say Billions) through lucrative Dealmaking with Foreign Leaders whom he had met, yeah...when he was President of the United States. 

Be careful what you wish for

We all recall ,,The Arab Spring'' and the Encouragement which was offered, particularly by Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton to the Forces which toppled Regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and Lybia.  Traditionally, some Long Term Thinking and Analysis of what the Consequences might be when one undertakes a particular Course in Foreign Policy are indispensable.  Many Historians and Political Scientists compare Foreign Policy to a Game of Chess, where thinking several Moves in Advance is essential.

Thus, the Statement reported to have been made today by Egypt's relatively freshly elected President, Mohamed Morsi is quite insightful, we believe:

In a speech that was by turns defensive and conciliatory, he ultimately gave no ground to the critics who now were describing him as a pharaoh, in another echo of the insult once reserved for the deposed president, Hosni Mubarak.

“God’s will and elections made me the captain of this ship,” Mr. Morsi said.

 

(as reported by The New York Times - Emphasis added)

Full Article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/world/middleeast/amid-protest-egypts-leader-defends-his-new-powers.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121124&_r=0
 

 

Traditionally, Secretaries of State have been notably apolitical.  A Secretary of State strived, sometimes more succesfully than at other Times, to further the Interests of the United States to be served for the current and future Administrations, regardless of which Political Party were to come into Power.  Secretaries of State did not harbour Presidental Aspirations.

 

However, all this Amalgamation of Developments in the Middle East already combined with Talk about ,,2016'' and how long Mrs. Clinton will stay on the Job as Secretary of State after having announced her Announcement to leave, for so long and so many Times, might be Ground for one to give thought to the Adage:

 

,,Be careful what you wish for.''

 

To this, we should consider the Thought that Events in Syria and Gaza, not to mention Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and even Turkey, are still unfolding.

An Argument against the Secretary of State's One Dimensional Approach towards the Situation in Syria

News Organizations, including foreign ones, are reporting with more and more Frequency on the complicated Situation in Syria.

Below is a rather typical Example from NBC News and Reuters, which appeared on 23 August:

The Headline reads:

More foreign Fighters join rebels in Syria as regional Crisis deepens

The full Article including Photographs and Video can be seen at:

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/23/13431460-report-more-foreign-fighters-join-rebels-in-syria-as-regional-crisis-deepens?lite

What is difficult to understand, in View of this is the Secretary of State's One Dimensional Position regarding the Crisis which is essentially to expel President Assad.

To put it another Way, when resolving a Problem, it is necessary to consider what other Problem will be created as a Result of the Solution.

Recently, former Presidential National Security Adviser Dr. Zbigniew Brzeziński stated the Opinion that it is a prudent and cautious Policy Approach to have in Place what and who will follow, before toppling someone.  Recently, a Policy similar to the one in Syria, pursued in Egypt, where President Hosni Mubarak was deposed has resulted in totally unpredictable Results which are still in the Process of unfolding.

The Question, must be emphasized, is not who Mubarak or Assad are or might be but what would follow their Places and to acknowledge the simple Fact that not knowing what will follow can be not only an unpleasant Solution but may lead to totally unpredictable Developments.

It occurs to this Writer that Dr. Brzeziński 's Opinion is one which should be considered and not dismissed out of Hand and the President is giving Weight to the Opinion of others, such as Vice President Biden, Dr. Brzeziński (who unfortunately is not serving in the Administration) as well as others who may be able to formulate something other than the One Dimensional Approach being championed by the Secretary of State.

 

Duel - Obama v. Clinton Teil 2 - Part Two - Deuxième Act

One little Item went nearly unnoticed over the News Wires a few Days ago; Mrs. Clinton said, she would not (Emphasis added) commit to serving as Secretary of State in a Second Obama Administration. For that, obviously, the Implication is that Mr. Obama would be re-elected for a Second Term but, the Implication also is that Mr. Obama would be re-nominated by the Democratic Party for a Second Term; an almost universally shared Assumption. However, one should not assume that almost universally shared means that Mrs. Clinton shares in that Universe. Not too long ago, Mrs. Clinton had also stated in various Interviews that she loves her Job as Secretary of State, that it is such a great Job and that it gives the Opportunity to deal with so many Challenges on the World Stage.

Last Weekend, The New York Times broke with the Story regarding the Rift between 'The White House' and 'The State Department' (on the Issue of the Transition in Egypt, with Mubarak staying Short Term or Longer Term) which, translated into English means, the Rift between President Obama and Mrs. Clinton. There have also been Suggestions that the Leak(s) regarding the Rift came from The White House, which, if true, would absolve Mrs. Clinton of any Attempts to undermine the Authority of the President. Only The New York Times knows that for sure. However, before going too far inside that Suggestion, it might be useful to make a few Observations.

When the Demonstrations in Egypt broke out, the First Hawkish Statements came from Mrs. Clinton herself. In her inimitable Albrightesque-Cojonesque Style, Mrs. Clinton declared, with a menacing Voice, that the Leaders of Egypt (i. e., Mubarak) have no Choice but to listen to the Voices being raised in Tahrir Square. The White House bought into the Argument and, as the Demonstrations proceeded and gained Intensity, Mr. Obama came out on Television and through Statements issued by The White House and his Press Secretary, for a Rapid Transition in Egypt, accusing Mr. Mubarak of not moving fast enough, which of course he was not.

When, for all Intents and Purposes, Mubarak's Fate had been sealed, then the State Department became engaged into an Effort of lobbying for a Longer Transition, with Mubarak continuing to play a Role. That, in Effect, as we say, pulled the Rug from under the White House Statements, or, as I think somebody said way back during the Nixon Administration, left the White House 'twist slowly in the Wind,' without full, active and unqualified Support from The State Department.

Thus, one may ask the Question: 'Why?' One possible Answer is that Mrs. Clinton may be eyeing 2012. Many think that Mrs. Clinton would not attempt such a Thing until 2016. However, Politics today seem to dictate, 'Sooner is better than later,' in every Circumstance except when it comes to Budget Cuts and raising Taxes. Additionally, many of us, including Mrs. Clinton, could not help but notice the meteoric Rise of Sarah Palin who has literally come out of nowhere and who, many think, is going to make a Run for the White House, no matter what. Virgil said, 'Audentes Fortuna juvat.' With a little Bit of Luck, there may even be some Palin v. Bachmann Republican Primaries or even Palin v. Nikki Haley Primaries, in the South. Most astute Observers think that Palin is not very likely to be nominated by the Republican Party and, if she were, she would lose badly against President Obama or, any other possible Democratic Nominees and there aren't that many other 'possible Democratic Nominees' except, of course, for Mrs. Clinton. However, the very Fact of a Palin Candidacy in the Primaries, would raise the Awareness for a Woman Presidential Candidate.

For Mrs. Clinton to make another Run for the Democratic Nomination, the Stars would have to line up not just right, they would have to be perfectly lined up. That would mean, for the Budget, Deficit and Economy Issues to continue to run South; those, Mrs. Clinton knows she has no control over; they are on Automatic Pilot but the Automatic Pilot is steering a Course favourable to Mrs. Clinton; so, a few Foreign Policy Misalignments would not hurt.

Mrs. Clinton received a Total of 18 Million Votes in the last Series of Presidential Primaries; that is a formidable Achievement, particularly because she ran against a formidable Opponent and this Time, if it were that even the Possibility arose, that the First Woman President of the United States could be elected, the prevailing Wisdom would very likely be: No! Not Nikki Haley, not Michelle Bachmann and Heaven forbid Sarah Palin; Clinton!

And President Clinton would no longer have to go to the Pulpit in a Black Church and have to ponder outloud, how to solve the Dilemma of an 'Abundance of Riches' when it comes to making up his Mind regarding who would be the best Presidential Candidate this Time; there would now be only one logical Choice.

Nicollò Macchiavelli's Book, 'Il Principe' may have finally come to deserve a Sequel...'La Principessa.'

Egypt - Nothing to worry about?

It has become clearer and clearer in the last few Days that Mubarak's Departure is imminent. Whether he leaves Today, or Tomorrow or the Next Day, those are the only Things which various Observers and others are debating or seeking to influence. It is also evident, at least to some of us that Egypt is entering Uncharted Waters. Nobody really knows, even if they claim to know, just what a Future Egypt will look like, next Month or next Year.

It is interesting in this Context that numerous Financial Analysts dismiss the Turmoil in Egypt and describe it as being inconsequential, in Terms of the Effect in might have on International Trade and thus, the World Economy. Various Arguments are submitted in support of this Thesis: The Egyptian Economy is very small, Egyptian Trade with the West is limited, there are no huge Egyptian Mega Banks. Thus, the World Stock Markets have continued unaffected, indeed, generally advancing, totally dismissing the unfolding Turmoil in Egypt.

One wonders how many of these Analysts have taken into Consideration the Suez Canal. Acts of Sabotage have been reported both in the Canal Zone and the Suez Pipeline, which is adjacent to it. To the Extent that the Political Instability in Egypt might influence the Safe Operation or, indeed, the very Operation of the Suez Canal, some of these very same Financial Analysts would do well to take notice that the Suez Canal carries, according to some Estimates, nearly 10% of the World Shipping and a very large Proportion of the Oil produced in the Arabian Peninsula. When the Suez Canal had to be closed as a result of the 1967 War, it remained closed for 8 Years; the Consequences on World Trade, particularly Oil Trade were enormous.

The other Danger, which these Financial Analysts appear to ignore and pay no Attention to or indeed, even discuss, is the much spoken 'Domino Effect' which transferred from Tunisia to Egypt and may be headed elsewhere, to places such as Jordan or Yemen. While neither Jordan or Yemen are Oil Exporting Nations, the simple Likelihood of Instability, however slight, in the Arabian Peninsula Region is something which perhaps should not be too easily dismissed. Finally, nothing is known about what Effects all this may or may not be having on Saudi Arabia, a Giant Oil Producer and also a Country where, according to some Reports, a certain Form of Slavery is still legal.

The Question behind this Article is to ask what Kind of Logic is driving the Positive Outlook of the Stock Market Averages, in view of this Onslaught of very worrying News. The underlying Question to that Question is, that if one assumes the Obvious, that Financial Markets can only be driven by Money, i. e., more Money flowing in than flowing out, then to what Extent the Policy of the Fed's 'Quantitative Easing' is fueling all this. It has been noted many, many Times before; Markets only go up when more Money flows in than flows out; that particular Law of Mathematics has not yet been repealed.

This should bring us down to taking a Look at some other Fundamentals: Jobs, Housing/Mortgages and Health Care. Mr. Bernanke testified before Congress on 9 February and spoke about the Dangers of the horrendous Federal Deficits but seemed to be little concerned about 'Quantitative Easing' which, although it carries a different Mathematical Symbol than the Federal Deficits before the Numerals, it has the same Effect as Deficit Spending, meaning, Cash Out. It would be useful to know, it would seem, therefore, just how much of this 'Quantitative Easing' Cash Out is finding its Way into Financial Markets, whether managed or coincidental and what the overall Effect on the Economy that would produce, if indeed that is the Case.