Why Cease-fires Fail

Just days after a European brokered cease-fire went into effect, Ukrainian and Russian forces fought a major battle over two railroad depots in Eastern Ukraine. The rail lines have significant strategic importance because they connect the two Russian-backed separatist strongholds in the region. For Ukraine, it was an utter defeat. It appears from early reports that more than 100 Ukrainian soldiers were killed and 300 were taken prisoner. Russian separatists captured the prize.

It has almost always been the case that cease-fires, brokered by non-combatants in distant capitals, fail. They fail because the struggle is never shared to the same degree by the would be peacemakers. Peace is rarely achieved before the warring parties have exhausted themselves in the struggle. Whether it's Eastern Ukraine, Iraq, the Balkans, or Vietnam, peace only lasts so long as someone is willing to enforce that peace through the threat of force. As soon as that threat is removed, the factions resume fighting.

It is human nature. People will fight for their land. They will fight for their way of life, their communities and their families. Many of the same people who would object to fighting someone else's war in some distant land have no compunction about picking up a rifle to defend their own neighborhoods. And any leader who tells them to put down their weapons will have their orders disregarded. That is especially true if that leader is from another country, like say, Germany. Leaders who prevent their people from effectively defending their homes, whether it be from civil war, foreign invasion, forest fire, or intruder, quickly find themselves out of power.

This is what is happening in Ukraine. Leaders from Germany and France pushed a cease-fire that included a "demilitarized zone," effectively carving out a part of the East for Russia. The Ukrainian people, especially those fighting on the front lines, were not fooled and do not believe that their country should be carved up. Even those who may be willing to concede their friend's neighborhood in exchange for peace are not so foolish as to believe that their own neighborhoods are then safe. So the fighting continues because, after all, there are some things worth fighting for.

Lasting peace will only be achieved in Ukraine when the world convinces Russia that it will not be allowed to keep the prize. As it stands now, Russia has carved off pieces of Georgia and Ukraine, and has annexed Crimea with nary a whimper from the rest of the world. It is understandable that they believe they will be allowed to keep their gains. So far no one has challenged them. Until that happens, Russian will continue. In fact, Russia will continue until they seize something the world is not willing to give up, like Poland. Then we will be in another massive European war that will make the 20 years we spent in Iraq look like toddlers playing in a sandbox.

The Crisis in the Middle East vs. World War II, A Comparative Analysis

In three hours of news coverage last night, there were no fewer than a dozen comparisons between the current crisis in the Middle East and World War II. Very bright analysts and former military leaders are in lockstep: ISIS is the greatest threat to the World since Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. They could not be more wrong and any comparison between ISIS and World War II demonstrates a stunning lack of perspective.

According to the National World War II museum, by 1945, 12,209,238 Americans were actively serving in the military in 94 divisions. 407,316 servicemen were killed. Another 250,000 were wounded. 4,730 were missing in action and presumed killed. Only 38.8% had non-combat jobs. 

The United States alone had 12,200 combat aircraft deployed, and had produced more than 40,000 during the course of the war. The Allies flew over 300,000 sorties in more than 20 countries. The United States lost 157 warships, including 11 aircraft carriers. It had, however, produced over 100,000 ships of all types during the war. Also produced were over 100,000 tanks and armored vehicles, 12.5 million rifles and more than 41 billion rounds of ammunition.

And that was just our contribution to the war effort.

The latest estimates are that ISIS boasts somewhere between 30,000 and 200,000 members. However, the higher estimates include ISIS members who are in administrative roles, like police, tax collectors, engineers, supply officers and the like. Since ISIS only controls a regional population of about 3.4 million, it seems extremely unlikely they have been able to recruit 200,000 hardcore fighters. But let's say they did... That's 200,000 Jihadis engaged in a regional conflict as opposed to 12.2 million Americans engaged in Europe and Asia in World War II. There is no comparison.

We could end the analysis there, but someone might argue that the scale of the casualties is comparable. It is not. If ISIS were to kill every single man, woman and child in the territories they control, that horror would yield between 3 and 4 million dead. While horrific, if we are simply comparing scales, that holocaust is still smaller than the 6 million Jews exterminated during World War II. It also pales in comparison to the 80 million people killed during the course of the entire war. In fact, World War II deaths accounted for between 3% and 5% of the total population of the entire world. Entire generations of men were wiped out in Europe and Asia.

And let us not forget the weapons that were used. World War II saw the world powers unleash carpet bombs, fire bombs and, of course, the atomic bomb. Entire cities were destroyed by these weapons. For example, in one single bombing raid over Tokyo, more than 80,000 men, women and children were killed by American bombers. 347 planes were used to drop 2,000 pounds of incendiary bombs on the Japanese over a period of 48 hours. The atomic bomb was dropped, in part, to "shock" the Japanese into surrender. It was hoped that the weapon would be so horrifying that all but the most devoted followers would either quit fighting or commit suicide. It worked.

One may ask why, after seeing such a comparison, World War II was so bloody? How can the bloodshed and violence possibly be justified? So many civilians dead. So many children slaughtered by bombs. 

The answer is quite simple really. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were existential threats to Europe and the United States. Those powers were racing to gain technological superiority over the Allies so they could literally conquer and occupy us. Nazi Germany was developing an atomic bomb as early as 1936. Imagine if they had won the atomic race. They had already won the race for jet planes, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. Germany would have had a functional ICBM decades before us had they been allowed to continue unchecked. Germany had invaded and conquered half of Europe before the French and British declared war, and it would be another two years before the United States would intervene. By the time we did, it had become a desperate struggle for the survival of our way of life and our nation. There is little doubt that, had the Nazis been given the opportunity, they would have used their technological superiority to at least menace our nation for decades.

ISIS just isn't that kind of threat. And if it ever becomes that kind of threat, we are decades ahead of this enemy in the development of military technology. And that is the key. ISIS may be bent on world domination the way Nazi Germany was, but the comparison ends there. They simply do not have the means to accomplish their goal and they likely never will. ISIS uses swords and crosses to brutally murder those who they consider Infidels. The Nazis used gas chambers to kill hundreds of Jews at a time. The United States just deployed its first laser on a destroyer. Swords vs. Lasers. Toyota pickups versus tanks. RPGs versus cruise missiles. AK-47s versus ICBMs. The only question is one of will, not weaponry.

If ISIS chooses to provoke a total war with the United States, it will be utterly annihilated. But we are not there yet. Let us not pretend that we are in order to justify another long, hard slog through the Middle East with no serious objective.

How Delay And Inaction Created An Advantage In the Middle East

As Congress debates yet another authorization to use force in the Middle East, Americans remain divided on how to proceed. On one side, many Americans believe that, while weak, Obama's limited approach to intervening in the fight against ISIS is the proper course of action. After all, we have already blundered into three wars there in the last 25 years, none of which ever led to the securing of any lasting strategic objective. Committing to yet another war, especially one of the size and scope necessary to actually defeat ISIS, is unpalatable to most of us.

On the other side are the traditional hawks. They predictably want a broader resolution, enabling President Obama (and the next President) to wage a massive war, using ground troops, to secure an undeveloped objective over a period of decades. The arguments in favor of this approach are emotional and underwhelming. ISIS is an evil group, there is no doubt about that. But there is something unseemly about choosing to fight one evil group over the others just because it is, in our judgment, a little more evil. Saddam Hussein gassing the Kurds, for example, was pretty evil. Yet we left him in power for another decade.

The fact is, the war in the Middle East is just another sad chapter in a region of the world filled with millennia of sad chapters. Radical ideologies are nothing new in the Levant region. Unfortunately, neither are the brutal tactics currently being used to achieve dominance over the region. While it is true that American policy in the Middle East is partly responsible for the current crisis, it is exceedingly naive to believe that 50 or so years of Western intervention is the principal cause of a 1600 year old Islamic civil war. American policy is nothing more than the excuse du jour for another group of violent extremists to recruit young men to their cause. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether they are Sunni or Shia. They both hate America, and they only use America to the extent that they can gain an advantage over each other.

The hawks also argue that, if America is not part of the final resolution to the ISIS problem, then our influence in the Middle East will be diminished. This is outmoded thinking. American influence in the Middle East is entirely based on military and financial support. America is not ideologically aligned with any government in the region, except Israel, and even that relationship is strained. Our so called "allies" in the region have no loyalty to us beyond our ability to keep their governments wealthy and in power. That is not a sustainable model, which has been made painfully clear to us over the last 20 years with the rise of Al Qaeda and other groups who get their financial support from those same allies.

Finally, it is also possible that ISIS will win, consolidate power, and then successfully export terrorism and carnage to the United States and Europe. This is the most compelling argument in favor of fighting another war in the Middle East. We have already seen these sorts of attacks in France and Denmark, and we should make no mistake that ISIS is a threat that we should take seriously. If given the opportunity, there is no doubt that they would kill as many Americans as possible. They would like nothing more than to behead our neighbors in our own neighborhoods and televise it on the internet. But, to believe that the solution is to wage another limited war against radical Islam is to ignore the utter failure of the last 20 years. Our strategy of winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis and Afghanis failed. It failed so miserably in fact that the Taliban will soon be back in charge in Afghanistan and ISIS emerged out of the thin desert air the second we withdrew from Iraq. Using limited warfare to win the hearts and minds of the people in that region has been a spectacular waste of time, lives and money. It is no wonder that the American people, in their collective wisdom, are decidedly against another major conflict. There is a way to defeat radical Islam in the Middle East, but this is not it.

President Obama's approach, whether by accident or by design, has forced the regional powers in the Middle East to begin to defend themselves. It is horribly sad that last week ISIS murdered Coptic Christians on video for the world to see, but it is not our fault, and the Coptic Christians are Egyptian, not American. As a result of their actions, ISIS has now provoked the largest, most powerful country in the Middle East. The Egyptians are now motivated to destroy ISIS and have vowed to do so. The immolation of a Jordanian pilot has provoked a similar response from Jordan. In another example, the radical Shia group that just organized a coup in Yemen is not going to be friendly to the U.S. But, they also hate Al Qaeda, Sunni radicals like ISIS, and have already been engaged their own war against those groups. Delay and inaction has in fact forced other muslims to act to defend themselves and their own positions in the region. ISIS is now vastly outnumbered by better organized, better equipped militaries in Jordan, Egypt and Iran. They will fight to the death, but at least this time it will not be Americans dying in the desert for a bunch of people who have no use for us anyway.

Europe Strikes Out In Ukraine

Shortly after President Obama declared in his State of the Union Address that Putin had been effectively contained, Russia launched a new, barely covert, offensive in Eastern Ukraine. As Vice President Biden observed last week, Putin's "little green men" have again been working to assault and destabilize the region. Russia is motivated to renew its efforts in the region because of low oil prices. Russia is a petro-state, and its economy has been struggling since oil dropped below $100 a barrel. Renewed aggression in Ukraine was predictable. Ukraine is a very important part of the Russian economy and Russia cannot thrive without it. While it is true that Eastern Ukraine is poor, Putin can still use the east as leverage in trade negotiations with the west.

That assumes Putin intends to stop in Eastern Ukraine.

Russia will dominate Eastern Ukraine for generations. That is a done deal now. Just as the Ukrainian government was developing plans to push the "separatists" out of the east, Europe intervened on Russia's behalf, proposing a "demilitarized zone" along the battle front. "Demilitarized zones" have had a unique place in history. They are often employed to stop conflicts that have reached a stalemate. Each side agrees to pull back 50 miles or so, the front lines are then flooded with land mines, barbed wire, and targeted with artillery. Demilitarized zones remain for generations and prevent the migration of people back and forth. The country is then divided by region and thereafter referred to as "North Korea," "South Vietnam," or "Eastern Ukraine." 

This is exactly the result Putin was pursuing when he first invaded. He used covert military assets to destabilize the region and take control of the major cities and infrastructure. He then "called for elections," controlled the elections through force, and used the result as a mandate for continued interference. He massed a large military presence on the border to deter interference from Europe and the United States, rattled his saber, and the world surrendered. 

Among the many ironies is the fact that German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, is the loudest supporter of the demilitarized zone strategy. Germans should be particularly sensitive to the idea of any nation being divided between East and West because of Russian expansionism. The French, also proponents of the plan, should be particularly sensitive to calls for appeasement and partition. And the British just seem lost. Their schizophrenic approach to Putin, condemning him on the one hand but refusing to take any significant steps to stop him on the other, just makes them look weak.

This is Europe's third strike and now the game is over. When Russia massed troops on the border of Crimea, they did nothing. When Russia annexed Crimea, they did nothing. When Russia massed troops on the border of Ukraine, they did nothing. When Russia invaded with irregular troops, they did nothing. Now they want to "end the bloodshed" by giving Putin exactly what he wants - a clear border between East and West with a bunch of land mines in-between a "buffer zone." Eastern Ukraine now belongs to Putin, and he is not going to give it back.

The Short And Brutal Road To Another War

One of the first things you learn in law school is that, when analyzing a problem, you must first identify the issue. While there are points awarded for identifying "an" issue, or "some issues," the result of your analysis is almost entirely dependent on identifying "the" issue. "The" issue is the single, overarching factor either fueling the problem or upon which its resolution is dependent. If you fail to identify and negotiate this one issue, your analysis will fail. If your analysis fails, then you will construct a failing strategy for resolving the problem.

It is true that many problems are complex. They require the identification of multiple issues and it is sometimes very difficult to determine which issue is "the" issue and which issues, while important to your analysis, are not the fulcrum upon which your analysis hinges. It is the responsibility of the analyst to sift through those issues, discarding those that are largely unimportant and narrowing them down to a manageable handful. From that handful, theories are tested, additional factual information may be requested, and additional data may be analyzed. Once the issue has been identified, the other issues seem to fall into place like so many building blocks. You can then build a successful strategy.

Or you can miss the point altogether. You can believe that a massive, militarized assault on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi was because of an "inflammatory" film. You can believe that the assassinations and killing spree in Paris last week was because of "offensive cartoons." You can believe that jihadism is because of poverty, or something Israel has done, or American imperialism. 

Another common error is to outright ignore the issue. People who ignore the issue tend to do so out of a deep sense of discomfort with the required resolution. For some, admitting that something is in fact the issue may shake the very foundations of their belief systems. We've all known someone who is willing to admit that they have a problem, but then refuses to look at the obvious cause of that problem. For that person, the problem usually continues to grow until resolving it becomes so unpalatable that hopelessness sets in. In the case of national policy, the result is catastrophic.

The attacks in Paris this week should not come as a surprise. After 9/11, most serious analysts believed that it was only a matter of time before Jihadis would sneak into the country, smuggle some weapons, and start shooting. Massive attacks are hard to plan and execute. There are many moving parts and the plot is more easily discovered. Smaller attacks are much easier to execute, require little planning, and have a devastating impact on modern western communities. In Boston, for example, one of our nation's largest cities was virtually shut down for days following the marathon bombing. Two young men with a backpack wrought havoc, took lives, cost individuals and businesses millions in lost productivity, and damaged our collective psyche. Last week, four individuals with guns shut down Paris, one of the largest cities in the world. The city is still on high alert. When you look at our response to these kinds of attacks, you would think that we were under siege from an organized army. They are very effective.

These attacks are, in part, the result of decades of poor analysis and poor execution. Even now, in the aftermath of these attacks, and with the promise of more to come, many of our leaders refuse to acknowledge the central component, common in all of the attackers. They follow a particularly violent sect of Islam. That is the issue. It is not poverty. Many impoverished peoples do not export terrorism. It is not Israel. Many nations hate Israel and do not export terrorism. It is not mocking. Many groups are publicly mocked and do not export terrorism. It is not American imperialism. Many nations have felt the brunt of American power and do not export terrorism. These are excuses, used by the Jihadis and their apologists to obfuscate the real goal, which is the extermination of all those who do not follow their religious doctrine.

These men and women do not fear death. They recruit others who have given up on life, or who also do not fear death. There is a sense of safety and invincibility in numbers. They congregate in groups and those who are least afraid of death bolster the faith of those less resolved. They use coercion and fear to force others to at least remain neutral in the fight, and they have no compunction about policing their own ranks for non-believers. 

There is only one realistic strategy for dealing with such fanatics. Since they cannot be deterred, they must be killed. Most people agree with this. But, there is another obvious component to this strategy. We must first find them and for that, we require the help of other Islamic nations. This is where we have truly failed. 

After every attack, the chorus of apologists begin their chants. "Islam is a peaceful religion." "Muslims are a peaceful people." "We should not brand all muslims as terrorists."  "We cannot blame the innocent muslims for the actions of a few radicals." And all of this is true, but ultimately irrelevant. Muslims are a peaceful people, but some are not. Not all muslims are terrorists, but some are. Some sects of Islam are peaceful, some are not. But, what we cannot ignore is the simple fact that almost all of the organized terrorist attacks against the west over the last thirty years have been perpetrated by muslims claiming to do so because of their faith. It is an uncomfortable truth, but we ignore it to our peril.

Because of that, muslim nations have a unique responsibility to condemn and thwart attacks. Many of these radicals have been funded over the years by our so called "allies" in the middle east. The Wahhabi sect of Islam, from which many of these terrorists draw inspiration, was founded in Saudi Arabia and has been financially supported by the Saudi royal family. They have done so more out of a sense of self preservation than ideology, but they bear significant responsibility for the problem. The Taliban was given significant financial and military support from Pakistan, making it possible for Al Qaeda and other groups to thrive. Iran, of course, is the largest state sponsor of terrorism. When muslim nations stand by and fail to capture or kill the Jihadis in their midst, the responsibility falls to the victim nations to do so. The western powers then invade, we meet resistance, resistance turns into resentment, which turns into more radicalization, which perpetuates a vicious cycle. Of course, since we are only engaged in a "limited war" with these "terrorist safe havens," we never entirely defeat the ideology or its supporters. They regroup and we do the whole thing again in ten years. Mission failed.

We are headed toward an inevitable conflagration in the middle east. It really is only a matter of time before the serpent that these "peaceful muslim nations" so carefully hold turns and bites. Whether it's ISIS or some other group, the radical islamists are better organized and have greater resolve than these peaceful nations that would rather not get involved. 

As for the west, we are probably at a crossroads. The Paris attacks likely signal a shift in emphasis from the massive 9/11 style attacks to lower intensity attacks designed to disrupt the everyday lives of as many people as possible. Soft targets like shopping malls, schools and office buildings will be the most likely targets. However, what the muslim nations of the world should recognize is, we Americans will be far more likely to project power indiscriminately when our families are being attacked. For example, one month after 9/11, Gallop reported that 34% of Americans favored the use of nuclear weapons against terrorist facilities. I am not advocating nuclear war, but I do think it is worth pointing out that, if enough of our children begin to die in low intensity attacks, our nation may become less restrained. "Hearts and minds" may no longer be a strategy that is tolerated.

Part of good leadership is calling out poor performance and misconduct. It is incumbent on muslim leaders to call out the radicals in their midst and hold them to account. It is incumbent on the western nations to call out our supposed allies in the middle east for funding and ignoring these radicals. If we refuse to accept that this is the issue, then the road to war will be short and brutal.

Four People Who Should Not Run For President

The ink is not even dry on the results of the last election and we are already being inundated with speculation about 2016. As early as it is, the field of candidates is pretty well developed. Unfortunately, our next election is shaping up to be another dynasty election. The establishments of both parties are working overtime to anoint an establishment-friendly candidate, who knows how the game works, and who is not shy about rewarding political contributors. It's shaping up to be yet another election we could all just do without.

The point of this article is not to say that establishment candidates are necessarily bad. To the contrary, without the political establishments, most candidates would have no chance of winning. The political establishment provides the money to get the message out, the volunteers to get out the vote, and the media support necessary to stay on message. But there is a big difference between a genuine Washington outsider, who leans on the establishment in the general election, and the Washington insider who spends his or her time doling out goodies to political supporters. The latter deserves the lion's share of the blame for many of the problems facing our nation.

On the other side of the equation, there are a number of candidates that are not necessarily part of the problem, but are simply unelectable. They have demonstrated, either by actions or words, that they would not withstand the scrutiny of the election, or would otherwise self-destruct during the process.  Like the Washington insiders, it would be best for the process if they just sat this one out. So, here are the four candidates that, in my opinion, we would be better off without.

Jeb Bush

At the top of the list is Jeb Bush. By all accounts he is a good man, did a good job in Florida as governor, and would be a formidable fund raiser. He probably would be a competent president. But, his last name is Bush, and there is strong evidence that the country still has Bush fatigue. George W. Bush left office with a low approval rating, and many Americans still believe that his policies caused lasting damage to the economy. There are also many Republicans that believe that W did lasting damage to the Republican brand with the bank bailouts, Medicare Part D, Common Core, deficit spending and, of course, the invasion of Iraq. The last two years of his presidency were a remarkable rush to the left after having governed as a conservative for more than six years. Like his father before him, W left conservatives suspicious that the Bushes are really just repackaged New England RINOs. George H. W. Bush, for example, also did lasting damage to the Republican brand (and the Reagan legacy) when he signed into law the largest tax increase in American history. Four years later, after having lost his bid for reelection, Bill Clinton was able to use that precedent to argue that "even Republicans believe in tax hikes," as George Bush Sr. was the poster boy for a tax and spend policy that cost the party its monopoly on the issue. Bush supporters, of course, argue that the Bushes are "reasonable" and willing to "compromise" when in the best interests of the country. While that may be true, the "compromises" for which the Bushes are most famous led to disastrous election results for the Republican party.

Finally, I think it is bad for our country to have these political dynasties. Dynastic poltics is particularly un-American. If Jeb Bush were to be elected, he would be the second Bush in one generation and the third in two to hold the most powerful office in the world. Even if he is the greatest, most moral man on Earth, that sends the wrong message to the rest of the world. America is not a monarchy and, while we can vote against another Bush (which we probably would), Jeb Bush's presence on the stage crowds out other candidates who might otherwise bring fresh ideas to the table. It's time to turn the page.

Hillary Clinton

For many of the same reasons discussed above, Hillary Clinton needs to get off the stage. She had an unremarkable career as a Senator, largely playing it safe on most issues, and an equally unremarkable stint as Secretary of State. Her principal qualification for the presidency is that her husband was president. She has been in politics nearly her entire life, she has little real world experience, and she has certainly demonstrated, at least early on, that she has trouble connecting to most Americans in a meaningful way. She's no Bill, and it is doubtful that she would govern as effectively as her husband did.

A Bush vs. Clinton election would be the epitome of elitism. Imagine how history would be written: Since 1988, the presidency has been occupied by Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Clinton. That's just not good for America.

Chris Christie

Governor Christie has already demonstrated a tendency to blow up while on the campaign trial. In America we like our leaders to be measured. Measured leaders are reasonable. They make measured decisions. They are contemplative and fair. Christie is a large man with a booming voice who has no compunction about using both his size and his voice to shut others down. While that is sometimes necessary, Christie seems to need to do it more than others. It is very likely that whoever he runs against will find a way to exploit his temper and his bombastic nature. Add to that "Bridgegate," and you have someone who is too risky to nominate.

Joe Biden

I've always liked Joe Biden. I rarely agree with the man, but I respect a man who speaks his mind using regular language. The snobby media of course can't stand this kind of man and look for opportunities to mock him for dropping the F-Bomb or telling it like it is about the efficacy of his boss's policies. I don't doubt his genuine love for the country, even if he does have some bad ideas or speaks a little too bluntly from time to time. All of that being said, his time has come and gone. Like the Republican party, the Democratic party also needs new blood. The old guard has old ideas that have proven equally unpersuasive over the last decade. Most Americans crave a robust debate on real issues, but we have also learned to tune out the same old tired arguments that have been constantly recycled. Joe Biden represents the recycling. Again, it's time to turn the page.

Obama's Cuba Legacy Will Sting For Generations

Several days ago, President Obama took a number of unprecedented steps to "normalize" relations with Cuba. Unfortunately, as we have become accustomed to by now, the President apologized for decades of American sanctions, made every concession he could, and still walked away with a bad deal. His efforts were largely wasted because, at the end of the day, the Senate is the body that would have to actually "normalize" relations with Cuba by ending decades of embargoes and treaties designed to isolate the country that once allowed Soviet missiles to target our shores. That's probably not going to happen, so the President's actions were only symbolic.

Cuba was actually the "America" that Columbus discovered in 1492. Shortly thereafter it became a Spanish colony. In 1902, with significant help from the United States, Cuba declared independence from Spain. For five decades thereafter Cuba was the destination for wealthy world travelers and entertainers. The government was hopelessly corrupt, however, and in 1952 Fidel Castro and his brother, Raul, used a junta to attempt to overthrow the government. They were radical communists, violent and acting with few restraints. They were defeated and Castro was imprisoned until 1955. He was released and fled to Mexico where he became a close friend of Che Guevara. Che was also a violent, unrestrained revolutionary. When he returned to Cuba in 1959, he had broad support for his revolution. The government fled the country, along with a substantial number of loyalists, and Castro took over. He quickly purged all opposition from the island and consolidated his rule.

Initially, the United States did not oppose his regime. After all, he was a lawyer, educated in the United States, he loved baseball and American cars. How bad could be be? It didn't take long, however, for the U.S. government to figure out that Castro was insane. He acted irrationally and with slight regard for anything that wasn't directly related to his radical plans for the Cuban people. It became clear that Castro would have to be removed. An attempt was made in 1961 by the Kennedy administration in what became known as the Bay of Pigs. The invasion, made up of Cuban exiles, was intercepted on the beach and decimated. 

Of course, just one year later, we faced the Cuban Missile Crisis. While the threat of Soviet missiles was eventually eliminated, the world faced the possibility of a war of unfathomable proportions because, in part, Castro wanted to guarantee his rule in Cuba by enlisting Soviet support.

Since consolidating power, Castro has (1) instituted forced labor camps for political opposition; (2) actively worked to identify so called "bourgeoisie" and place them in reeducation camps - or kill them; (3) criminalized unemployment by arresting anyone not seen working at a job; (4) "reeducated" homosexuals in forced medical rehabilitation camps; and otherwise arrested, tortured and executed some 30,000 other "dissidents" during his reign. In short, Fidel Castro and his brother are very bad men. There should be no mistake about that.

Of course, many Cubans over the years have fled to America, where they have worked extremely hard to build good lives for themselves and their families. They hate the Castros. Fidel and Raul are, to them, the devil incarnate; the torturers of the innocent, and executioners of their families. President Obama did not grow up in Cuba. These men and women did, and they know something about it.

American opposition to Castro has been justified. It has been justified since the beginning, and will continue to be justified for so long as Cubans live under this oppressive, violent regime. The Castros will all be dead soon. There is not one younger than 70. To believe now, as the regime is about to fall, that it was the appropriate time to forgive all past transgressions is beyond naive. It is radical. It is not just a little radical either. It is 60's Che Guevara radical. It is a young man in college with his "Che" T-Shirt on, angrily itching to show the world how backwards they all are for opposing such a great man. It can no longer be classified as naive. It is a belief system.

The funny thing is, I could see a president, after having opened up trade with dozens of other countries, after negotiating substantial treaties with other nations, or preserving American power overseas, I could see that president normalizing relations with Cuba. There would no doubt be a debate. How that president addressed the Castros in the process would also be an important indicator of whether we were conceding defeat or they were. But, to make it your single affirmative foreign policy legacy is just unfortunate. Coupling that with an apology for decades of sanctions, supported by hundreds of American leaders and every president over six decades, is simply misinformed. Then to do it now, as the Castro regime is about to die out, shows that in the President's mind, it just couldn't wait. It looks suspiciously like he wanted to apologize to Castro while he was still alive so he could appreciate it and savor his victory. 

The President's Cuba legacy will be remarkable in history. There can be no doubt about that. When Cuba does finally open up - after Raul Castro dies - and Cubans flock to the United States, you can bet that very few will ever vote for the party that apologized for Castro. You can also bet that Cuba really won't be open before that time, even after the President's recent efforts. 

I ordinarily would not be so hard on the President for taking this position. After all, I like Cuban cigars and rum as much as anyone else. I'd love to vacation in Cuba. I hear it's a pretty place. But, President Obama accidentally revealed something about his true motivations by a mistake he made in his speech. I find those motivations disturbing. In his apology, President Obama referenced the "legacy of colonialism." America, however, has never been a colonial power. That was old world Europe. America was, in fact, a European colony, as you may recall. But in President Obama's mind, America is a colonial power, which has, among other things, oppressed the people of Cuba.  He is completely wrong on his history, however. First, as I mentioned, America did not colonize Cuba. Spain did. More importantly, however, America fought for Cuba's independence from Spain. Part of that became what was known as the "Spanish American War." The ship the Maine, of "remember the Maine" fame was sunk off the coast of Cuba in 1898. American then intervened on behalf of Cuban independence in 1902 - just four years later. It is doubtful that Cuba would have won its independence without American help. Independence. Not colonialism. Independence.

There is a deep misunderstanding of history at work here and, like most deep misunderstandings of the facts, it has led to yet another poor policy decision. The time to normalize relations with Cuba would have come anyway. Old men tend to die, even if they are dictators. They also tend to be replaced by younger leaders with different values. In the case of Cuba, there is a legacy of oppression that would soon be lifted without American intervention. Intervention in this case bolstered the dictatorial regime. Consequently, President Obama is now the one acting like the leader of a colonial power, interfering with the individual rights of the colonists.