Monthly Archives: October 2015

Wishful Thinking

Posted on by
1

Russian President Vladimir Putin is looking for an exit strategy from Syria already? That’s what the AP thinks….

Putin certainly realizes that some 30 Russian combat jets won’t be able to change the course of the war, and allow Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces to win.

As an aside, AP is commenting, whether it understands it or not, on President Barack Obama’s “commitment” to changing the course of the war in Syria with the tepidly applied occasional potshots he’s authorized our own Air Force to take.

More to the point, though, the AP has misunderstood Putin and forgotten Russia’s long-term relationship with Syria and why that relationship exists. Russia needs Syria for a couple of reasons: seaports on the Med and to limit our influence in the Middle East. To those ends, Putin needs Bashar al Assad to stay in power in Syria; a western oriented replacement, or no replacement at all and the attendant chaos do neither of those reasons any good.

There is, too, the use to which those 30 combat jets are being put. Their combat tempo is much higher than ours, the targets much more carefully and coordinatedly selected to take out forces that are explicitly anti-Assad (and so more or less allies of us for the moment), and they’re being used in coordination with Assad’s ground forces against those anti-Assad forces.

Yeah, they can change the course of the war, especially given the fractured nature of those opposition forces.  And Putin is in Syria to stay; he has no exit strategy because he wants no exit.

The AP does have the right of it on a couple of other Putin goals:

to show all players that they will not be able to unseat Assad by force;…to foster political talks that could allow Moscow to protect its interests in the region.

Another key task for Putin is bring Moscow and Washington together in a security dialogue, which he hopes would make Russia appear as an equal….

In these, Putin also has a willing partner in Obama. Obama’s behavior in Syria can’t possibly be intended to unseat Assad, no matter Obama’s chit chat to the contrary. Obama, too, already has engaged in the beginnings of a security dialogue, initially to keep our aircraft out of Putin’s way, and after that to accede to a Putin security arrangement.

Thinking that 30 combat aircraft are insufficient to accomplish anything meaningful on the ground, though, is wishful thinking, a hope that Russia will fail and leave. The proper and determined application of airpower in coordination with ground forces will demonstrate otherwise.

“The Law Must Change”

Posted on by
Reply

There are a couple of cases before the Supreme Court in this session involving questions of excessive punishment. One case involves a defendant on death row in a case where a jury rendered a majority advisory verdict applying the death penalty on the defendant’s conviction of murder, with the judge having the final say. The argument here is that this

violates a 2002 precedent that defendants are entitled to have a jury, rather than a judge, determine a death sentence.

The other case, though, is the one that interests me. In this case, a 17-year-old, a juvenile under the definitions extant at the time, was convicted in 1963 of murdering a sheriff’s deputy and given a life without parole sentence. His appeal asks the Court to make retroactive its 2012 ruling that

juveniles cannot automatically be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

The government agrees with the defendant in this case, which may or may not be an appropriate thing to do in such matters, depending on the facts of a particular case.

What’s of critical importance here, though, is the government’s argument in supporting the defendant. Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben argued

The law must change to accommodate the compelling interests in having the characteristics of youth that mitigate culpability considered in the sentencing process[.]

That’s absolutely true. Laws passed by our elected representatives must change to accommodate society’s changing compelling interests. But the courts cannot do that. The courts’ role is strictly limited under our social compact to striking a law down if it violates our Constitution and to applying the law as it is written if the law is Constitutional. The task of making law, or of modifying existing law, is solely within the province of our legislature, our elected representatives, since making or modifying law is purely a political matter and not at all a judicial one.

The Supremes, if they’re to be true to their oaths of office, must reject the appeal. The Justices certainly can, in their published opinion(s) on the case, advise the Congress to make changes the Justices individually or collectively think appropriate, but they may not legislate from the bench.

A Misunderstanding

Posted on by
Reply

The People’s Republic of China’s Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, misunderstands. Or maybe not.

Wang last month began urging the rest of the Six-Party Talks members (the PRC, Japan, the RoK, Russia, and the US) to resume negotiations with northern Korea (the sixth member) regarding its nuclear weapons program. That’s Wang’s misunderstanding.

There’s nothing to negotiate. Northern Korea stands in gross violation of a number of UN mandates requiring it not to have a nuclear weapons program and not to have nuclear weapons. In addition, northern Korea stands in gross violation of prior agreements reached in earlier iterations of the Six-Party Talks.

What’s required now is enforcement of those mandates and agreements. What’s required now is the dismantlement of northern Korea’s nuclear weapons programs and nuclear weapons. By all means necessary.

Of course, the PRC well knows this about its client. A militarily capable—even a little bit—client is a useful tool in the PRC’s power struggle with us. This client, in this condition, is a useful tool in the PRC’s implied threats and open aggression against the nations ringing the East and South China Seas, many of whom are our friends and allies.

Maybe there’s no misunderstanding at all here. The PRC also well knows that talks will produce nothing substantive concerning northern Korea’s nuclear weapons or its belligerence.

Fatal Flaw

Posted on by
2

The “problem” with encryption of private communications is becoming empirical rather than hypothetical. Hillar Moore, District Attorney for East Baton Rouge, LA, says he’s one of 16 prosecutors to write the Senate Judiciary Committee calling for back doors into encrypted devices for law enforcement.

He, and other state and local prosecutors and police have a mix of smart phones owned by deceased victims and suspects that those government representatives can’t get into for any evidence related to the crimes being investigated because the phones are locked and the passwords are unavailable or the suspects refuse to give them up.

While I’m sympathetic to the government’s problem in such cases, the fatal problem is those back doors into the encryption. Back doors destroy the encryption. Back doors are openings for nefarious individuals to steal from the phone’s owner. Back doors are openings for out of control governments to abuse the citizens they’re supposed to protect.

That there aren’t easy answers to the conundrum—yet—doesn’t alter that simple fact. Nor does it alter the fact that the convenience of government is not an excuse for circumscribing individual liberty.

In the meantime, if government wants to know something, get a warrant.

A Politicized Cabinet

Posted on by
Reply

From a Hamilton Jordan memo to President Jimmie Carter on creating the Department of Education:

Political Considerations

The following are the major political considerations that you should be aware of in making this decision:

  1. The teachers organizations—particularly the National Education Association—are the fastest growing, most active, and by many standards the most effective political organizations in this country. With a membership that exceeds two million, they comprise one of the most committed and articulate political constituencies in our country.
  2. These groups—particularly the NEA—have been our political friends in the Presidential campaign and our allies on many crucial legislative battles. For the first time in its 114 year history, the NEA endorsed a Presidential candidate in the 1976 general election. . . .

Conclusion

I would strongly recommend that you support the creation of a separate Department of Education for the following reasons:

*Your unequivocal promise in the campaign to do so

*The teachers of this country have been our political friends in the past and can be our valuable political allies in the future

*The arguments for the creation of a separate department are at least as convincing as the arguments are against it

If you make the decision not to create the separate department, I would strongly recommend that we not pursue some organizational middle ground that would allow us to claim that we have met our campaign promises to the teachers. We promised a separate department, and I think that it would be an insult to our teacher friends to argue that some internal reorganization is a satisfactory substitute for the separate department they were promised.

DoE was established in the fall of 1979. It was created for purely political reasons having nothing to do with educating our children. It’s been nothing but a political organ for teachers unions and the Politically Correct Class since.

Or, maybe more properly, a political cabinet. Idealistic, maybe, but that wasn’t the purpose of Executive Branch cabinets. Get rid of the Department of Education. And, as Hamilton Jordan correctly recommended, don’t do half measures. Don’t replace the Department with anything, and return the current employees—every single one of them—to the private sector, don’t reassign them within the Federal government.