Trump's Doolittle Raid Will Prove Ineffective In The Long Run

On December 7, 1941 Japanese planes attacked Pearl Harbor, leading to the entry of the United States into World War II. The Japanese achieved total surprise and, but for providence, would have sunk the entire U.S. Pacific Fleet. Both the military and President Roosevelt were embarrassed by the complete failure of military planing and U.S. intelligence. Roosevelt believed that something had to be done to show the Japanese that they had made a serious miscalculation.

Fast forward four months. On April 18, 1942, Lieutenant Colonel Jimmy Doolittle, along with 80 brave men, launched a bombing raid from the USS Hornet on industrial targets in Japan. The attack became known as the "Doolittle Raid." While the targets struck had military significance, the attack itself had very little effect on the Japanese war machine. It is undisputed, however, that the raid made Americans and their leaders feel better.

There is no doubt that President Trump's order to attack Syria in response to Assad's atrocities makes us feel better. It takes a certain kind of sociopath to be unmoved by images of children being gassed while asleep in their beds. We all feel like we should do something. And so we act.

The fact is that for years ISIS has been, literally, crucifying children, stoning women, burying families alive, drowning them in cages, lighting them on fire with diesel, chopping off arms and legs, raping, beating, whipping, shooting and generally acting like the pawns of Satan that they are. Their atrocities rival those of the Third Reich. Our response has been airstrikes in support of a largely ineffective local Iraqi army.

The Caliphate's atrocities are no less atrocious than Assad's, or those perpetuated in Africa or any number of other places in the world. In Syria, we chose to make a point. Fine, but it is this selective outrage and inconsistent application of military force that has served to destroy our credibility with rank and file inhabitants of the Middle East.

If we are truly honest with ourselves, we would acknowledge that we have a tendency as Americans to overestimate the effectiveness of military action. "Mission accomplished" comes to mind, for example. In this case it is pretty clear that the Administration wanted to "send a message," and nearly every pundit in the country believes that everyone from Putin to Xi to Kim Jong Un will think twice before messing with us. I respectfully disagree.

Unlike ISIS or some African warlord, Assad crossed a very clear, very red line that has been, more or less, consistently enforced since 1925. No matter who you are, you cannot use weapons of mass destruction in war unless you are first attacked with those weapons. We ostensibly fought the second Iraq War to remove WMD from another brutal dictator who had gassed his own people. There is no question that the world has some obligation to respond and remove those weapons from Syria. However, lobbing 59 cruise missiles at a single airbase, avoiding the chemical weapons stockpile, and failing to render the runways unusable does not achieve that objective. 

Nor will it deter Putin, Xi or anyone else. President Trump demonstrated his willingness to use kinetic military force on short notice. He showed that he is decisive. These are good things, but our enemies will analyze those things in context. Just a week ago, the Trump Administration announced that it was no longer focusing on removing Assad from power. Assad and the Russians were undoubtedly emboldened by those remarks. The only remaining question was how to win as fast as possible. They chose to use chemical weapons. Secretary Tillerson then announced after the attack that the United States was looking to put together a coalition to support regime change. The administration attacked Syria and then walked that back, announcing that this was a "one off" and that, while we are prepared to do more, we are not planning any additional military action.

It doesn't take a chess champion to see the problem here. There is no consistent plan or strategy with regard to Assad, Syria or the larger Middle East. Moreover, a dangerous precedent has been set. If WMD are used, our response will be to strike a single airbase and not even render it useless. Nor will we seize the weapons. And we will announce that our military operation is over. But we will leave them guessing about whether we will remain a consistent police presence in the area. 

The Trump strategy may be to simply make their heads explode...

Vladimir Putin will not be deterred. He will shrug his shoulders and say "oh well, no more chemical weapons." Then he will launch a massive cruise missile strike of his own on those same villages. He will also use the rise in world tensions and our unilateral use of military power as an excuse to move further into Eastern Ukraine. And that's the mild version. He may directly test U.S. resolve in the Middle East and NATO resolve in Europe. He is not going to simply take it and go away.

I am not suggesting that we should allow Russia to dictate our foreign policy or military action. That said, it would be a serious error to ignore the fact that Russia is a military superpower that could conquer Europe in a week and, ironically, has demonstrated to us in Syria that they are willing to use WMD in order to secure a strategic objective. Nobody is talking about that pretty significant detail. And, as they have the largest stockpile of nuclear warheads in the world, that should give us a moment of pause.

There is a difference between showing the world that we are willing to take action and showing the world that we are willing to take effective action. If all the Trump Administration wanted to do was show the world that, after eight years of inaction, the U.S. is "back" and willing to resume its role as occasional policeman, then mission accomplished. If the goal was to stop the proliferation and use of WMD by an evil regime or isolate and deter the Russians, then this action had little effect. 

In the long run, peace in the Middle East can only be achieved by the consistent and robust application of soft power backed by the threat of decisive force. A single demonstration of military power is insufficient to convince hardened regimes fighting for their very existence that we will affect the outcome of the conflict. In the case of Syria, Assad has Russian support, which is substantial. In the case of ISIS, 59 or 559 cruise missiles are really not much of a threat. They will just melt into the desert until we run out missiles and then reform as another group, assuming we can even find which huts to strike. So, we can applaud President Trump for showing that America can and will still strike bad men. But, let us not convince ourselves that, without more, this will stop the genocide in Syria or strike fear in the hearts of other superpowers.

How We Should And Should Not Respond To The Syrian Chemical Attacks

It is without question that the chemical attacks on Syrian opposition forces, refugees and their families is a war crime. Chemical weapons have been banned in the battlefield since the end of World War I. The treaty, known as the Geneva Protocol, was signed by 40 nations in 1925. Russia ratified the treaty as the Soviet Union in 1928. Syria ratified the treaty in 1968 under the leadership of General Salah Jadid, who had just come to power after a successful coup. Two years later, Hafez al-Assad removed Jadid and his puppets from power, establishing modern rule in Syria. Syria's current leader, Bashar al-Assad, is his youngest son.

World War I saw the first use of chemical weapons. It is ironic that yesterday's attack comes nearly 100 years to the day that the U.S. entered the "War to End All Wars."

There have been other chemical weapons treaties since 1928. The world has largely followed those treaties. Unfortunately, like most laws and treaties, if they are not consistently enforced, they are eventually ignored.

Both Iran and Iraq used chemical weapons during their decade long war during the 1980's. Following George H.W. Bush's decision not to depose Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War, Hussein used chemical weapons to quell Kurdish uprisings in northern Iraq. The world did nothing about the use of chemical weapons in those conflicts, notwithstanding that many women and children died. In recent history, both Assad and Isis have used chemical weapons in Syria and Iraq. 

Three years ago, I wrote a post outlining Putin's larger strategy in the middle east. http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/07/putins-game.html. In essence, Putin has always planned to use Russian military force and political influence to form some beachhead in the middle east. Syria is that beachhead and Assad is its guarantor. So far, the United States has been content with this arrangement. But, that changes when one of the principal guarantees from Russia, the confiscation of Assad's chemical stockpile, is unfulfilled. 

President Obama did very little to influence a positive outcome in the wake of the Putin-Assad alliance. It was all talk, some sanctions, and discussions about arming rebels. When Assad crossed Obama's "red line," the President threatened regime change but ultimately did nothing about it. This is different, however. Assad used Russian military assets to disperse his chemical arsenal. The Russians are at least indirectly responsible for violating the long standing ban on chemical weapons use.

It is a game changer and it should be. When major powers break arms treaties, it necessarily requires the other signatories to reevaluate their own restraint. Evil Jihadis using chemical weapons is to be expected. A military Superpower using chemical weapons is a violation of international law that must be answered if we are to continue to subordinate our own interests to similar arms treaties.

Here is what we should NOT do:

1.  Bomb Russians

Since yesterday, the usual suspects have been canvassing the cable news networks calling for war with Russia. Lindsey Graham, Deputy Hawk in Chief, was on O'Reilly last night advocating the bombing of Syrian airfields that are also housing Russian planes and personnel. This is neither realistic nor would it be wise. First, as soon as American planes come close to Russian airbases they will be intercepted by Russian fighters or shot down by advanced anti-aircraft weaponry. Even if the U.S. successfully bombed Russian military assets, it would be an act of war and Russia would almost certainly retaliate. As I've said many times before, a third industrial scale war must be avoided at almost any cost.  http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-race-towards-world-war-iii.html.

2. Rely on the United Nations

The United Nations will do absolutely nothing. The world is wary of "regime change" and the perpetual use of U.S. military power in the middle east. Our schizophrenic approach towards the region over the last thirty years has left the world with the impression that, whatever we decide to do, it will not bring long term stability. One decade it's nation building and the exportation of democracy. The next decade it's withdrawal and ISIS. We have helped create the very conditions that we now oppose in the region. We need to take some responsibly for that and proceed with some caution and deliberation. 

3.  Win Heart and Minds

The "hearts and minds" strategy has been an utter failure dating back to Vietnam. It is part of a limited warfare strategy that sets narrow targets and narrow goals. It is susceptible to mission creep as local attitudes improve, and it is equally susceptible to guerrilla warfare as local attitudes sour. We have tried to win hearts and minds in the middle east for decades. We lost. They hate us and we just have to accept that. They will hate us until they have no other choice but to like us. That requires more than chocolate bars and the promise to avoid all civilian casualties.

What we should do, if anything:

1.  Deploy Decisive Military Force to the Region

If we are going to do anything at all, it should be decisive. It should end middle eastern conflicts in general for decades. It should be to completely destroy terrorism as an ideology and make it so unpalatable to the population that grandmothers turn in grandsons who speak of Jihad.

Lobbing some bombs here and there makes the situation worse. If we are going to end this perpetual conflict, it will require decisive military force. It will also require a long term occupation of the region. While that sounds undesirable, it really is nothing more than following, with more effect, the status quo. We've deployed hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the middle east over the last 20 years. Whether we continue to deploy and withdraw or simply stay really does not matter. 

To that end, we should reestablish our presence in Iraq, deploy an ISIS first strategy, crush them in both Iraq and Syria, and then occupy as much territory in Syria as possible. The occupation deprives Russia of additional territory and guarantees protections for civilians. 

2.  Draw a New Line in the Sand

We do not need any other red lines but, after we have taken as much of the region as possible, we should negotiate a border. Assad can stay in power, it will not matter. He will be governing a postage stamp nation. The U.S. military will have a massive presence in his country and will punish any incursions into the occupied territory.  Assad and the Russians can be contained, but not with bombs dropped on huts from F-16s. It will take a sustained effort.

3.  Stay

In order to really effect change in the middle east, we will have to stay there into the foreseeable future. Again, our military has been in and out of the middle east for decades. What I am suggesting is nothing new. It is merely a recognition of the fact that the enemy ideology cannot be stamped out without a consistent and sustained effort to do so. Yes, it will cost a fortune, but no more than it has already cost us. In the long run it will cost us much less in both lives and money.

These strategies serve several purposes. We can simultaneously annihilate Jihad and contain Russia.  We also punish a dictator who chooses to stockpile and use WMD. We set a new precedent, one that is more likely to be observed in the future. We protect civilians and our allies in the region. We also further isolate Iran.

Moreover, Russia, once they are deprived of any meaningful foothold in the middle east, will have to reevaluate their own global strategy. Vladimir Putin will at least see that force will be met with force, and the United States will answer conflict with the total destruction of the enemy. It is a message that has been lacking from our foreign policy since the 80's. All of this is accomplished without provoking an industrial war with Russia. We need not announce our intentions to the world, we need only to execute the plan.

Give Democrats And Leakers One Last Chance, Then Use Their Own Methods Against Them

Every American should be outraged by recent revelations that Obama National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, repeatedly used the intelligence agencies to spy on Trump, his family and his advisors. This spying has been confirmed by five major news organizations and dates back to the Republican Primary. Susan Rice (and likely others) systematically searched for and reviewed all raw communications involving the Trump organization and any foreigner under surveillance. This included communications between Trump advisors, Trump himself, and Trump's family. Since this surveillance was conducted on U.S. soil, it required a FISA Order.

Former Obama Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Evelyn Farkas, confirmed last week that the Obama Administration intended to collect as much "intelligence" against President Trump and his associates as possible and then disseminate it to as many people as feasible before leaving office. To that end, President Obama expanded the rules under Executive Order 12333 making it easier to disseminate this type of classified information just days before he left office. 

As we all know by now, President Trump tweeted that his "wires were tapped" by "President Obama." The tweet set off a fury of recriminations. Democrats and many Republicans, including John McCain and Lindsey Graham, condemned the President, calling on him to apologize to President Obama. The media has repeatedly reported that the President's tweet was "completely false." The Director of the FBI testified before Congress that he "could find no evidence" of any "wire tap" on Trump.

Liars all.

In a world of deconstructive thinking, I suppose we should not be surprised that the President's political opponents would deconstruct the word "wiretap" to make it appear that he was lying. Except that he wasn't. 

Black's Law Dictionary defines "wiretapping" as follows: "A form of electric or mechanical eavesdropping where, upon court order, law enforcement officials surreptitiously listen to phone calls or other conversations or communications of persons." Let us engage in a little deconstruction of our own. President Trump's claim is that "Obama" "wiretapped" him. Under the definition in Black's, "wiretapping" is "eavesdropping," with a "court order" that involves "surreptitiously listening" to "phone calls" or other "communications" of a "person." 

Now, let us examine how that definition applies in this case. It is undisputed that: (1) there was eavesdropping; (2) under a FISA Court Order; (3) that allowed intelligence agencies to; (4) surreptitiously listen to; (5) phone calls or other communications; (6) of people, including President Trump, his family and his associates. The only remaining question is whether "Obama" himself participated in the "wiretapping." We know that he did and here's how: He revised Executive Order 12333 which, according to his own Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, was part of a broader strategy to disseminate intelligence gathered on then President-Elect Trump. 

Obama wiretapped Trump. Period. It is actually even worse than that. He and his administration did not just retask the FISA process to aid in some kind of "Russian ties" investigation. His National Security Advisor intentionally ordered the raw intelligence, including Trump associate identities, to be delivered to her so that Democrats could gain a strategic political advantage over Republicans. I say "Republicans" because, if it is true that this surveillance dates back to the primaries, then it is highly unlikely that Obama was wiretapping just Trump. It is more likely that the Obama Administration was using the intelligence apparatus to surveil all potential nominees.  It is a question that is at least worth asking.

Democrats and their allies are already forming a new narrative in the event that this scandal explodes into something more apocalyptic than Watergate. Even if the Obama Administration ordered the surveillance of Donald Trump and his family and friends, it was not "illegal." After all, the FISA Court authorized the surveillance of foreigners and the collection of Trump communications was "merely incidental." Moreover, there is nothing "inherently illegal" about unmasking Americans caught up in "routine surveillance" of foreigners. 

The problems with this narrative are numerous. Notwithstanding the fact that it probably is illegal to unmask the Trump communications, the narrative ignores the obvious. Obama and his administration took affirmative steps to not only review the raw intelligence, but also to disseminate that raw intelligence to as many people as possible for political reasons. Moreover, Hillary Clinton and several of her campaign advisors, including Ben Rhodes, still had clearance to review that intelligence. It would be exceptionally naive to believe that this intentionally gathered intelligence was not shared with her campaign. 

It may not matter whether or not this was politically motivated, however. Democrats and their allies can have it one of two ways. First, they can admit that this entire conspiracy (yes, conspiracy) to spy on the Trump campaign was an inappropriate abuse of power. The Congress can then pass bipartisan legislation to reign in these out of control intelligence agencies and make some progress towards restoring Constitutional freedoms. Susan Rice and those who leaked this information can be given at least a slap on the wrist, and the country can move on.

The alternative should be significantly more frightening to the opposition. For a group of people who believe Donald Trump is an authoritarian dictator, Democrats sure seem ok with giving Trump a reason to abuse his power. The natural reaction to the opposition narrative is to simply say that turnabout is fair play. Should the Democrats persist in this fantasy that all of this was proper, Trump should turn the intelligence agencies on them. If the Obama Administration can spy on political opponents using FISA, unmasking and leaking, so can the Trump Administration. In fact, the President has the power to unilaterally declassify anything he wants, which could be the Democrats' worst nightmare. 

For example, he could start with Benghazi. Perhaps we could finally review President Obama's communications (or lack thereof) during the 13 hour crisis that resulted in the deaths of four Americans. He could also declare the Clinton Foundation a "foreign agent" and obtain a FISA Order to "wiretap" the Clinton's, their daughter, all of their friends, all of their donors, and anyone who was ever associated with the foundation. Since President Obama supported the Clinton Foundation, he too should be subject to surveillance for the rest of this life. The President could then leak, or just declassify and publish any embarrassing intercepts, making sure their context is never known. 

President Trump could go even further. He could order the Justice Department to launch an investigation into the Obama Administration's ties to Iran, Russia or any other hostile foreign government from whom the wiretapped communications were gathered. According to Democrats and Establishment Republicans, having "ties" to a foreign government is now considered the appropriate subject of an all out inquiry. In short, let the rivers of unlimited surveillance flow, drowning the entire political establishment. After all, Trump was elected to either fix Washington, or burn it to the ground. He may simply choose the latter.

Or maybe, just maybe, after a difficult election, we can cease fire.