Putin's Gambit, Revisited

This was predictable. In fact, I predicted it, and I'm neither an expert, nor alone. (http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/07/putins-game.html). 

Today, Vladimir Putin's Russia commenced airstrikes against both anti-Assad and ISIS forces in Syria. Shortly before the airstrikes began this morning, a three star Russian general appeared at the U.S. Embassy in Iraq and demanded to speak to the military attache deployed there. In what was apparently a heated exchange, the Russian general hand delivered a verbal order from Putin. U.S. forces are to cease Syrian operations. 

Apparently, the Obama Administration had no idea this had happened or that it was coming, notwithstanding the fact that Putin met with Obama in person two days ago. AP reporters on the ground in the Middle East had to awaken U.S. officials and alert them to the development. The Administration once again proved that it is asleep at the switch, literally.

Putin intends to keep Assad in power, as he no doubt promised to do when the two met early last year. He also has substantial regional support from Assad's allies. Shortly after Obama inked the Iran nuclear deal, Iran's top general traveled to Russia and met with Putin. It has only been four weeks, and in that time, Russia, Iran, Syria, and Shiite Iraq have formed a military alliance. Russia has now deployed attack aircraft, surface to air missiles, helicopters, tanks, armored vehicles, and about a thousand troops to Syria. If - and this is a big if - Putin is successful in defeating ISIS in Syria, he will have established a stronger foothold in the Middle East than we have.

Today also marks the first time since the 1970's that Russia has had a military deployment to the region. There is no doubt at this point that the United States needs to reinforce its weak position in the Middle East. We should have a large deterrent force in place in friendly countries, and we should redeploy to Iraq. Putin cannot be allowed to determine the fate of the region. We would almost certainly be on the losing end, as would our allies, and Israel in particular.

Nothing is certain, however. Not even for the great Vladimir Putin. Russia has now stepped into one of the worst quagmires in human history. The United States, a comparatively rich country, has spent decades and trillions of dollars trying to influence and control these countries. After near total failure, we decided as a nation to withdraw. We elected a President who did exactly that, damned be the consequences. Now it's Russia's turn. While I have no doubt that Putin will wage a much more direct and brutal war against the enemy, it will now be his nation spending the money, attracting the enemy's attention, and losing the soldiers. It seems unlikely to me that he will be any more successful than we were, but he has even fewer resources at his disposal. 

Russia's economy is about the size of Texas's. Russia's military, while huge, is poorly maintained. It possesses very advanced aircraft, but only about half are operational at any given moment. Most of its hardware is left over from the Cold War. More importantly, however, Russia is already overextended. It invaded Crimea and Ukraine. Both engagements were successful for Putin, but this invasion is qualitatively different.

Crimea and Ukraine border Russia. Syria does not. A significant portion of Crimeans and Ukrainians wanted to be part of Russia, and Russia has historically occupied both countries. By contrast, the Syrians already hate Assad and are unlikely to find Russian occupation any more palatable. In fact, Assad is neither a Sunni nor a Shia. He is an Alawite, which is itself a minority of the Syrian population. Choosing an unpopular dictator as an ally to establish your foothold in the Middle East invites defeat. That, combined with the remarkable tenacity of the opposition, will involve Russia in a much larger war than it is expecting. This is a concept with which Americans are all too familiar after decades of fighting Hussein, his army's remnants and then al Qaeda in Iraq. IEDs, roadside bombs, snipers, and extreme brutality await Russia and its soldiers.

And, to be clear, Russia will have to deploy ground forces. An airpower only strategy will no better work for Putin than it has for us. If Putin is serious about securing Syria, his nation will have to endure the same above-mentioned guerrilla tactics that we did. The Middle East cannot be won otherwise.

For better or for worse, the United States has been the dominant foreign influence in the Middle East since World War II. That has made us a target, it has cost us lives and money, but it has also ensured access to the world's most important strategic asset - oil. Until we do find a viable alternative, we have no choice but to continue protect our interest in an uninterrupted supply.

Winners, Losers, and Superheros From The Second Republican Debate

In case you missed it, it was a good debate. A strong field of Republican candidates, under a constant set of silly questions from CNN showed the world that they are the right party to be leading the nation. Everyone shined, but a few stars shined brighter. I'll get right to it.

CNN - Perpetual Loser

No one should be surprised that CNN, who once monopolized cable news, showed once again why it is now a marginal influence in the media. FoxNews failed too, but in a different way. Fox was narcissistic with the questions posed, and the personalities asking the questions were far more concerned with their own ratings than substance. CNN took media failure to an entirely new level by qualifying every single question with a perceived "attack" on the candidate. "Governor Bush, Mr. Trump has called you a fool and an idiot who supports murdering children. How do you respond?" No, it wasn't that bad, but you get the point. CNN - losers.

The Field - Winners

The Republican field was outstanding in this last debate. Each candidate seems to have settled in to his or her true persona. All looked very comfortable and no one took the bait when CNN's "second rate interviewers" (to channel Donald Trump) blasted them with ad hominem material. The maturity demonstrated by the candidates on that stage was exactly the maturity and skill we expected as Republicans when the campaign began. 

Home Run Hitter - Carly Fiorina

Just wow. You could not find a more articulate, passionate, serious conservative in this race. And she's a woman. Not that I am personally surprised by that. I surround myself with strong women and I was raised by a strong woman. I am exceptionally pleased, however, that we have such a serious and conservative candidate, capable of articulating conservative principles in a common sense way, who doesn't feel the need to talk about her gender. She is a superstar. When given the opportunity to pander to women, she politely declined, reminding the voters that women are actually the majority in this nation, and they are not a "special interest group."

She has no weakness that she cannot explain. She is obviously exceptionally competent at running for President. She was well prepared and, unlike most of the other candidates, she was precise in her recommendations. When offered the opportunity to discuss military issues, she had obviously been advised by experts, and she took that advice. She knows what she wants to do, right down to the number of divisions of Marines, and how many ships we need in the 6th Fleet. Outstanding. She could not have been more impressive.

One final thought. She's received enormous criticism about her "severe demeanor." That is sexist. I'm a conservative and I hate political correctness. But I'm telling you, that is sexist. She does not have to smile, be "likable" or talk about baking cookies or serving her husband. All Republicans and true conservatives would do best promote her as a fantastic candidate without regard to gender-specific issues, her appearance, or her "likability." To do less is to prove that everything the Democrats say about conservatives is true when it come to gender issues.

Carly Fiorina is severe. And it is appropriate. We are facing severe problems and serious issues. I want a serous person to deal with those issues. I don't care whether she smiles. 

Home Run Hitter - Marco Rubio

Rubio continues to demonstrate that he has the most well thought out position on the issues. He is also articulate, serious and a true conservative. He possesses a clarity of thought that the other candidates seem to lack (except Fiorina). He knows his own mind. His positions are well developed. As young as he is, he is a superstar and would make an excellent President. There is a plain honesty about him. When you listen to him speak, you just know he is being genuine - the same way Obama was and is genuine. The difference is, Obama is wrong on the issues and Rubio is not. If the Establishment wants to save the party from Donald Trump, they need to give up the Jeb Bush fantasy and throw their weight behind him.

Strikeout - Donald Trump

There is nothing wrong with supporting Donald Trump. You are not a bad Republican, bad person, neophyte, or loser for liking him. Trump best articulates the anger and frustration that the rank and file in the party feel. He is a showman and he pushes all the right buttons. But...

I had a conversation with a very well informed, intelligent friend about Trump. He articulated a number of solid reasons to support Trump. But there's one question that has to be answered about him before we make him President. Is he competent? 

Donald Trump had and still has no idea who the second tier global players are. He knows who the Ayatollah is, but he doesn't understand the interplay between the religious fanatics in Iran, the Russians, and the Kim cult in North Korea. He still does not know who the Quds are, even though he was called out in a radio interview two weeks ago on that very issue.

The worst moments for Trump in the debate were a result of the same shallow thinking he's demonstrated throughout this process. He was pressed about his comment that Fiorina's "face" couldn't get elected. Fiorina owned him in that exchange and he knew it. He didn't "win" that exchange, she did. His original comment was inappropriate and his attempt to redefine his comment was contrary to his "straight talk" persona. 

Then, having not learned his lesson, Trump lobbed some insult at Rand Paul about his looks in another exchange. Let's be realistic about this. Rand Paul is a fit, distinguished looking man. Carly Fiorina is a fit, attractive 61 year old woman. Donald Trump is married to an Eastern European supermodel who he left his last young wife for. "The Donald" is not fit, he is follicly challenged, and he is shorter than his opponents. His attacks on others about their appearance demonstrate both superficiality and a complete lack of physical self-awareness. They also reveal his own insecurities. The fat man calling a woman ugly is either a pig or insecure about his own appearance. Strike three.

Most Improved - Chris Christie

Christie had a good night. He had a few bad moments, but over all he was most improved. He didn't need to accuse Fiorina of interrupting him. He didn't need to lean so far forward on his podium, and he needs to lower his voice. That said, he is much better at articulating his positions than he was a month ago. He also did a much better job explaining his record in New Jersey. After his first debate, I was ready to write him off. His performance was just poor. After this debate, I think he is back in the game. He seems to be better at articulating conservative values and he is definitely doing a better job connecting with blue collar folks than the other candidates. 

The Elephant - Jeb Bush

The Republican Establishment is terrified. They are so scared that they sent the head of the RNC to Donald Trump's building to basically beg him not to run as a third party. What a farce. What a weak play. What a bunch of self-serving pansies. The RNC doesn't have the strength or courage to put forward a candidate compelling enough to castrate a political dilettante like Trump. It is pathetic. Of course, this is what we've come to expect from the RNC and the Republican Establishment and it is the reason they are losing the primary.

Jeb Bush is still the elephant in the room. There are candidates in the race who would be acceptable to the Establishment. But so long as Bush is in the race, he sucks up all the resources, most of the Establishment media attention, and is the best organized candidate because, well, the Establishment supports him.

Jeb did well. Someone clearly told him that he needed to man up and start acting like the blue-blood, third generation power player that he is. Trump can insult him for his low energy, but Bush knows everything there is to know about government, defense, foreign policy and war. His brother was a two term President and his father served one. They both went to war and they both won. I have to admit this, if the country were attacked tomorrow, I would probably vote for Jeb. I want the most competent, connected person with the best relationship to other experts to guide the country through the crisis. Taking a chance on Rubio or Fiorina or Trump would be unsettling under those circumstances. So, Jeb survived another debate. Good for him. He'll be the nominee if he makes it to the Convention.

The Uninspiring

Among the ranks of the uninspiring were Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee. Dr. Carson just remains a fish out of water. His is obviously brilliant but he seems to lack the passion and the experience to be President. He seemed out of touch or just plain wrong with some of his responses, in particular his statement that he would not have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11.

Huckabee just seems to me to be yesterday's news and too reactionary. Spending three minutes of his precious time defending a Kentucky Clerk who refuses to provide marriage certificates, is three minutes lost. It's just not the most important issue in America.

Rand Paul continues to be one of the most important influences in the Republican Party. His libertarian views and his ability to clearly articulate those views have begun to frame the debate on a number of key issues. Unfortunately, he just cannot gain traction in a large field of candidates.

Finally, Ted Cruz. He sounds like an evangelical preacher in a mega church on Sunday. He can be talking about military deployments and he still sounds like a preacher. I don't like being preached at, and I suspect most other Americans feel the same way. He's a strong conservative and there is a long way to go in the race, but he's going to have to do more to separate himself from the pack.

The Dark Horse - John Kasich

There is no candidate more misunderstood. Even Fox calls him a "liberal" Republican. It's just absurd. I've been following politics closely since 1992. John Kasich won his first House seat in 1994. He tirelessly led the Republican party, as a freshman, through a government shutdown that resulted in a balanced budget. It was the first balanced budget since before World War Two. That is a major accomplishment and exactly what we need as a nation now. He has never done anything to make me thing that he's a "liberal." To the contrary, he is a strong advocate of tax reform, he is a fiscal conservative, and he is exceptionally competent. He'd make a great President and he did well in this debate. Again, however, until the field narrows, he will continue to be overshadowed by the louder candidates.