The GOP Establishment Has Itself and George Bush to Blame for Trump’s Rise

With each passing day, it appears to be increasingly likely Donald Trump captures the Republican nomination given his committed base, strong national numbers, a lead in New Hampshire that is insurmountable so long as “establishment” candidates like Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and Chris Christie split the vote, and a Teflon-like insulation from his own statements. From George Will declaring a Trump nomination could be the end of the Party to discussions of an anti-Trump PAC, the establishment is up in arms over Trump’s rise and seems to be blaming the base for his success: supporters are falling for a cult of personality, they’re unsophisticated, just looking for a loud candidate, and so on.

I too am a Republican who is no Trump supporter but am tiring of the establishment’s blame game. If they want someone to blame, they should try looking in the mirror lest we forget how Trump was treated in 2012. Rather than ignoring him as a fringe figure, Mitt Romney gladly visited the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas to receive his endorsement in person. Plus, Romney originally planned to have Trump make an appearance at the Convention, only to be cancelled due to a Hurricane. Rather than ignore Trump, the Party decided to embrace and therefore legitimize Trump. If Trump is to be considered a monster, then Romney and the establishment are Dr. Frankenstein. They’ve lost control of their creation (as though they ever had control), and he’s turning out to be quite popular with the villagers.

The establishment’s blame goes beyond the actions in 2012 and is more fundamental. The Republican Party has a George W. Bush problem, and his economic record is partly responsible for Trump. The establishment has yet to come to grips with the economic failings of Bush’s Presidency, which left the working and middle class in worse shape.

The core of Trump’s support comes from working people. For instance, the latest national CNN poll showed Trump with 42% among those earnings under $50k and 46% among those who did not graduate college. The CNN poll is consistent with other national polling. Blue collar workers have clearly gravitated towards Trump.

Now, I am no defender of Barack Obama’s economic policies, and GDP growth during this recovery has been slower than under President Clinton or Reagan. Like many Americans, I blame subpar growth on Obama’s tax and regulatory policies, and the facts are that while job growth has been solid, real median incomes have fallen to $53,657 in 2014 from $55,313 in 2008, per the Census Department. Additionally, in December 2008, America had 12.9 million manufacturing jobs. As of November 2015, that number is 12.3 million, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

For many Americans, the state of the economy is still fragile, and angst remains. Unease with Obama policies could explain why voters are seeking change, which would imply more support for Republicans, but it does not explain why so many voters are totally ignoring establishment choices in favor of someone as unorthodox as Trump. It is here where Bush comes in.

On the positive side, under President Bush, we enjoyed nearly 3 consecutive years of unemployment at 5% or less, roughly full employment. However, the Bush economy was not great for everyone. GDP growth averaged a meager 2.1% during his two terms, and the middle class did not enjoy much of this growth. Just as under Obama, real median incomes fell under Bush, from $57,724 in 2000 to $55,313 in 2008. Even more importantly to understand the Trump phenomenon is the decline in manufacturing employment, from 17.2 million in December 2000 to 12.9 million in December 2008. Of course, millions lost homes in a financial crisis for which Bush bears some responsibility. The political establishment of both parties have failed working and middle class Americans for at least fifteen years now.

Unsurprisingly, republican voters are willing to look outside the establishment, which has failed them economically for years. Moreover, the establishment, by focusing all of its ire on Obama, has not reached out to workers in a compelling fashion to explain how the GOP can make the economy work for them. While he may be selling a false bill of goods (what makes for good politics is not necessarily good or plausible policy), Trump has made a clear and simple case to workers, essentially: you’ve been screwed by incompetent politicians who work for donors not you, who negotiate terrible trade deals with China, and who have let illegal immigrants undercut wages whereas I will work for you and bring back your jobs. Let’s be honest, if you’re a white guy working in manufacturing, it has probably been a tough decade, and this pitch is compelling.

At the very least, Trump is making an overt effort to show he cares about the middle class, something other candidates and the establishment at large have been unable to do. Rather than recognizing the problems of today differ from 1980, we often reflexively revert to Reaganism (perhaps because Bush policies didn’t work so well). Some, like Carson, push flat taxes that would likely hurt the poor. Senator Cruz is pushing a Business VAT that would disincentivize employment (probably not a good sell to workers), and while Rubio has more interesting economic policies given his new child tax credit, he has not made a sustained pitch to the working class on economics, focusing on foreign policy instead, though that may be changing.

For Republicans to win national elections and possibly put Upper Midwest states in play, they need to do better with working and middle class Americans. To do so, the establishment must recognize its economic policies have failed in the 21st century (as have Democratic policies). In many ways, workers are worse off than 20 years ago, which is a stinging rebuke of our political establishment. Until the republican establishment admits failings and modernizes conservative principles to solve 21st century problems (for example, negative marginal tax rates), the GOP establishment will justifiably continue to lack any credibility with its working and middle class voters.

Trump’s proposals are ultimately simplistic and essentially are “blame the other guy (with other guy being China, Mexico, Vietnam, Donors etc.),” but he is the only major candidate arguing to workers he cares about their well-being. No wonder they are flocking to him. The base is not failing the establishment. The establishment has failed its base for 15 years with lousy, outdated, and unoriginal economic policy offerings, and until they recognize this, blue collar republicans will be receptive to outsiders like Trump.

Bush failed the middle class. Unless the GOP intellectual elites cede this and make necessary policy updates, Trump won’t be an aberration. He’ll be the first in a long string of populist outsiders while the power of the establishment continues to atrophy.

Advertisements

The State of the Union: Strong But Unsatisfactory

Later today, President Barack Obama will deliver his final State of the Union Address, filled with the typical pomp and circumstance. Following the pattern of virtually every speech given by each of his predecessors in the Modern Era, Obama will declare the State of our Union is “strong” or something to that effect. Democrats certainly will hope voters feel exactly that way in November as they try to retain the White House for a third straight term, a feat they have not accomplished since President Truman. However, the leading Republican candidate, Donald Trump, has a campaign slogan (Make America Great Again) that could be taken to imply the state of our union is not strong.

So cutting through the partisan spin; what really is the state of the union? I would argue it is strong but unsatisfactory. The fact is that America is the best positioned nation in the world, but there is still much work to be done. In this sense, both sides have valid points to be made; our situation is not necessarily as dire as republicans campaigning suggest while there are greater risks to our future than the President has conceded.

To be frank, the fact we are strong is not really an accomplishment for the President. While we were in deep recession in 2009 when Obama assumed Office, America was still the strongest nation on earth. While our banking system had been crippled by the Housing Crisis and Lehman failure, requiring the Bush Administration to launch widespread bailouts to avert Depression, the worst of the financial crisis had passed by January 20, 2009, and depression was off the table. America was still the center of innovation with the best technology firms in the world residing here, mainly in California. We were the clear global hegemon economically and militarily.

Today, I would argue that last sentence still rings true. Yes, GDP growth has been undeniably sluggish, but our economy is far larger than any other, and it adds far more value than export-driven China, which has run into significant problems of its own of late. The official unemployment rate is down to 5%, and even if we adjust for some of the cyclical weakness in the labor force participant rate, unemployment would be 6.5-7%, which is neither great nor horrible. Yes, China is saber-rattling in the South China Sea, and Putin has caused problems in Syria and Eastern Europe, but our military and naval wherewithal is without rival.

China’s military might is entirely regional, and Putin lacks the economic power to exert influence much beyond his own borders and Syria. Given his nuclear arsenal, we cannot force him to do anything, but he can’t force other nations to do much either. He and China are undoubtedly challenging the U.S. Security Order with limited successes, but the fact remains, there is nary a region in the world where we are not a key (if not the key) player. America is the lone indispensable nation on the face of the earth. The setbacks and loss of influence in the Middle East, parts of Eastern Europe, and select spots in South Asia are not markers of inevitable decline but rather missteps quickly reversible under new, more assertive American leadership.

Consider the following questions. Is there a nation you would rather be today than the United States? Would you trade America’s future for that of another nation? Is there a more dynamic economy on earth? Would you swap our military power for that of another country? Is there a nation where you can enjoy more political freedoms or economic potential than here?

Chances are you would answer “no” to all (or at least most) of those questions. How then, can one say the state of our union is anything but strong? Again, the same was true in 2008, and it is a testament to just how well positioned America is and how dynamic the American people are that these statements are almost taken as a given. Being “strong” is really not an accomplishment of the President; the accomplishment is not torpedoing that strength, something almost no President could manage to do. That is why the American people rightly demand more than a strong state of the union.

Now, Obama has some indisputable accomplishments. The economy is stronger than in 2008, but it is not strong enough. GDP growth of around 2-2.5% has been positive but not spectacular. Real median income is lower than in 2000; the typical worker has not felt this recovery. This has been a problem for 15 years and is a serious challenge neither party has done a good job of addressing. We need to make structural reforms, restructure our tax code, and improve education to build a stronger economy from the bottom-up to grease the tracks of upward mobility. A poverty rate of 15% continues to be a stain on this country, and our programs need to focus more on lifting people from poverty rather than simply making poverty more comfortable. We need to reform, and yes cut, entitlements like Medicare and Social Security to ensure they will be solvent for those of us who really need them in our later years. Is our economy strong? Yes. Satisfactory? No.

Beyond economics, we have unsatisfactory progress in other areas. Race relations are not where they should be, and in too many communities, police-community (particularly in black precincts) relations are not where they should be. Many parties (from a media that generalizes every story to bad cops to self-aggrandizing community leaders) share the blame, but we need to take steps in local communities to rebuild trust. Gun violence is too high, and this nation does not handle mental illness as well as it could. There are no easy answers, and the gun issue is too often politicized. The scourge of violence is real though. Is our culture strong? Yes. Satisfactory? No.

In foreign affairs, we do not have a clear strategy to permanently roll back ISIS from Iraq and Syria and its outposts in Libya and elsewhere, though our military certainly has the capability to defeat the terrorist organization. We have ceded influence to Iran in the Middle East. Our Eastern European allies are on edge as NATO seems ambivalent about a bellicose Putin, and we are not investing sufficiently in a 21st century Navy that can guarantee freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. We have the tools to address these international challenges; it is just a matter of gathering the will and thinking in years not weeks when budgeting and planning. Is our international standing strong? Yes. Satisfactory? No.

The President is right to say the state of our union is strong, and America continues to be the world’s best positioned nation—the world’s only superpower. That said, republicans are right to say we can do a lot to make America even stronger and build an economy that works better for everyday citizens. GOP candidates need to refine their rhetoric and avoid doom and gloom, which is not in sync with reality.

The genius of America is that we are always striving to make the country better because the pursuit of happiness and liberty is an unending effort. We are never satisfied with the state of the union. The GOP should offer clear contrasts with and criticisms of current policy but must maintain optimism. We are an optimistic people, and the optimism is entirely justified.

After all, how else should we feel about the strongest, most morally just nation on earth that serves as a beacon of hope for oppressed people the world over?

The Paris Agreement: Yet Another Meaningless Deal

On Saturday, nearly 200 nations signed a climate pact that President Barack Obama called a “turning point for the world.” Obama argued this agreement was the one “the world needed.” Upon reading the actual text of the deal, it would appear the world didn’t need very much, if the President’s claim is to be taken at face value. In the end, this deal is as fanciful and toothless as the Kellogg-Briand Pact of nearly a century ago that banned war in the wake of World War I. While the failings of this deal are unlikely to be as grave (World War II was pretty awful, you know), it suffers from the same fatal flaw: no enforceability.

This agreement doesn’t actually do anything; it is merely a voluntary plan whereby nations will unilaterally cut emissions or something. The over-arching goal is to keep global temperatures rising 2 degrees (Celsius) from the current expectation of some in the science community for 2.7-3.7 degrees. If this voluntary deal works really well (!!!), the agreement leaves open the possibility of pushing for a more aggressive 1.5 degree target.

This agreement “invites Parties to communicate their first nationally determined contribution no later than when the Party submits its respective instrument of ratification, accession, or approval.” This agreement merely invites nations to come up with their own plan to bring down emissions to unspecified levels to lead to less climate change. Does that sound vague? Don’t worry; this agreement also creates an “ad hoc working group” to monitor nations’ progress because groups of bureaucrats are renowned for getting things done.

Signing to this deal merely signifies the “Voluntary participation authorized by each Party involved.” Are there any enforcement mechanisms that punish nations for failing to bring emissions down (or for some developed nations, rise more slowly)? Nope. We are operating solely on the trust system—no way that could produce underwhelming results. Some hailed the underlying goal of the deal as ground-breaking: “Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible.” Others may contend that the phrase “as soon as possible” means absolutely nothing and gives offending nations plenty of room to maneuver if confronted (i.e. more action just wasn’t possible). This deal also says developed nations are to give developing ones at least $100 billion/year by 2020 to help fund their development, thereby making income redistribution an international affair. Good luck getting everyone to write those checks…

Those who are unconvinced climate change is the world’s most pressing problem and aren’t prepared to crush the economy to cut emissions should actually be thrilled by today’s deal as no new policies have to be implemented. If we actually wanted to cut emissions, any deal needs to have set targets and strict ramifications for violations (for example, automatic WTO admissible tariffs to hurt the economy of offenders). Otherwise, developing nations, like China and India, will cheat, pointing to the fact there were no restrictions on the West’s industrial revolution a century ago. Of course, they benefit from our revolution (India doesn’t have to invent the car for instance), so there should be restrictions if we are to have some, though perhaps not quite as onerous for a bit of time. Adhering to unenforceable deals threatens to leave the American economy relatively uncompetitive as other nations’ flout the deal’s requirements.

Fortunately for the climate alarmists in our midst, the private sector is already helping to solve the problem. Our abundance of natural gas is hurting coal, and with or without government regulations, coal will likely go the way of the dodo bird in this country over the coming decades. As we export LNG, energy production around the world will only get cleaner. Automotive emissions keep improving, and the advent of the electric car will only help. Continued advancement in battery technology could facilitate a smaller, cleaner grid while improvements in transmission will make nuclear more viable in more regions. Even in countries like China, popular discontent over ridiculous pollution levels could force the regime to act over time if only to keep the public happy. Indian cities aren’t far behind.

However, our President is a climate alarmist, which leaves one befuddled as to why he would be happy with this deal that is voluntary and lacking enforcement mechanisms. This climate pact is strikingly similar to the Iran Deal, which is nonbinding (heck no one even signed the agreement!) and has laughable verification measures (not to mention the fact that re-imposing sanctions with Russian approval and European unity is as likely as Hell freezing over, unless of course unfettered climate change here serious impacts the temperature down below…).

Our President seems to have a lot of trust in foreign powers to do the right thing despite their national interest. It’s a fascinating turn for a President who so recognized the free-rider problem, he coerced Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face stiff financial penalties (the individual mandate). Of course, if the insurance under Obamacare is as good and affordable as advertised, wouldn’t people be clamoring for it and not need coercion? I guess, unlike China and Iran, Americans can’t be trusted to the right thing.

Moreover, our President may see no need to make legally-binding agreements since he never feels the law binds him as evidenced by the lawless immigration executive orders and potential one on Guantanamo Bay. Ultimately, our President seems to enjoy doing things for the sake of doing things. That is how Democrats inevitably react to gun violence (just pass a law, even if it wouldn’t have stopped this shooting). Obama wanted a deal with Iran to check off a box on his legacy, even if the deal was a poor one. Similarly, he wanted to do something on the climate. We can all sleep easy and claim the moral high ground now that this high-sounding, completely unenforceable garble has been agreed to. In the view of our leadership, just doing something is an achievement, results be damned. That is the only way to explain the Iran Deal, the Paris Accord, gun violence reactions, and our tepid ISIS bombing campaign. At least we can feel good about ourselves as the world implodes!

Now, I don’t believe economy-crushing cuts make sense, but it astonishes me how horrendous of a negotiator our President and his Secretary of State, John Kerry, are. They are either delusional or lying when calling such a deal as this a groundbreaker. If we ever want to deal successfully with China or Putin or Iran, this naïve idealism is dangerous.

Recently, Obama and the Left have often linked climate change to terrorism. Well, the Paris Agreement will do as much for emissions as those 20 bombings/day have done to roll back ISIS.

Just like coal, this deal will end up being a puff a smoke, not worth the two weeks of diplomats’ hot air blown in Paris.

Post Paris: Ashamed of our President

NB:

In the days following the heartbreaking, cold-blooded terror attacks in Paris, I have opted not to post anything in this forum because my thoughts have been very harsh (I feared overly so). In times of strong emotion, one can say something they later regret, and I did not want to fall into this trap, stretch my arguments, or offer commentary I would later wish I hadn’t. Instead, I have pored over my words to be as precise as possible and ruminated over my thoughts so that I could articulate exactly as I feel without writing anything regrettable. I am saying this upfront because what follows is (for me at least) a very strongly-worded condemnation of not only our President’s policies but of our President himself as well. Personal attacks are quickly tiresome and rarely justified, and I attempt to avoid them. However after several days of thought, I have come to a clear conclusion: President Obama’s policies are making us less safe, likely because he has succumbed to delusion over fact, and he is undermining our moral authority on the world stage, which is the gravest of offensives. I am ashamed of our President, words I have never previously uttered—these words still feel foreign to me. Below are my views on these two points (the first is policy-driven, the second point houses my more severe criticisms for those who prefer to skip ahead); I hope you consider reading this worth your while, regardless of whether you agree with my conclusions.

  1. President Obama is in a State of Delusion

Friday marked a clear turning point in the war against the Islamic State (ISIS). First, it bombed a Russian airliner, then it perpetrated a massive suicide attack outside Beirut, and it culminated with the devastating, extremely well-planned, coordinated attack in Paris Friday night (additionally, on Tuesday, Germany was forced to cancel a soccer match and concert in Hannover due to “concrete evidence” of an impending attack). ISIS has morphed from a powerful conventional ground force into a terrorist organization with al-Qaeda-like capacity to launch terrorist attacks in the Western world. This is a deeply disturbing development that makes ISIS a clear and present danger to the United States and our European allies.

We can engage in counterfactuals all day to assign the blame of ISIS’s rise. Many on the Left say if Bush hadn’t invaded Iraq, ISIS would not be here, and there is some truth in that point (not that Saddam was a saint). On the right, we can point to the fact Obama pigheadedly refused to negotiate a status of force agreement to ensure a stable transition because he wanted to win the political points associated with a rapid withdrawal. Fair-minded individuals can see that a lot of people share the blame for the conditions that allowed ISIS to form. However, the blame clearly shifts to Obama as the question turns to gains ISIS has made in terms of its capabilities and territory, taking control of half of Syria and Iraq, a landmass larger than at least 13 states.

Yet while speaking at the G-20 summit on Monday (after the Paris attacks), President Obama reiterated, “We haven’t underestimated their abilities.” Well, I hate to see how dangerous ISIS could be if we had underestimated them. While being dismissed as a JV-team, ISIS was racking up conquests in Ramadi, Fallujah, and Mosul while we seemingly assumed they had the staying power of the pet rock. Yet, here we are 18+ months later, ISIS has barely lost territory, likely has tens of million (probably north of $100 million) in the bank, and has developed the ability to launch outward attacks of terror. We are left with two possibilities: the President is a bald-faced liar, pretending his strategy is working to avoid losing political standing, or alternatively, he is in a state of delusion. Neither option is a flattering one.

Considering the Administration is doctoring its own intelligence reports to better fit their narrative, reality be damned, I find myself in the delusion camp. A further sign of delusion is that the Administration seems hell-bent on continuing with the same, failing strategy (if Obama were lying to the public, I like to think he would change things behind the scenes). Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security advisor, promises a mere “intensification” of the current strategy, comments Obama has since echoed. However, the underlying strategy is misguided.

Here is what Obama said hours before the Paris attacks: “Well, no, I don’t think they’re gaining strength. What is true is that from the start our goal has been first to contain, and we have contained them.” It is truly stunning how badly Obama could misread ISIS to think we had contained them. Even if, simply for the sake of argument, we concede that ISIS has been territorially contained, that is not success—it is an undeniable failure. Iraq has been ravaged, and what remains is quickly descending into an Iranian-proxy state. Similarly, Assad is merely a puppet for Iran and Russia. The status quo makes it easier for Iran, with Russia by its side, to become the regional hegemon, controlling the capitals of Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and Syria. That tilts the balance of power in the region decisively against us, and nuclear deal or not, it is impossible to label a Russia-Iran axis as friendly to democracy or our interests (I’ve written about this very issue weeks ago).

By definition, a policy of containment cedes its current territory to ISIS. In this territory, ISIS can train and build the capacity to launch outward attacks, for which it has just proven a stunning proficiency. Was the policy of “containing” al-Qaeda to Afghanistan particularly wise in the 1990s? Obviously, not. Controlling territory gave it free rein to plan and execute the 9/11 attack. Should it surprise anyone that giving ISIS the same set-up allowed it to execute attacks of its own? All the while, ISIS has built cash reserves, trained a revolving door of foreign fighters who have returned home to the West, and entrenched itself in its territory, ensuring removal will be costlier and bloodier than necessary. The policy of containment has been disastrous at every level. Obama has allowed Iran to gain influence, Assad to hang on, and ISIS to develop al-Qaeda-like capacity.

Not since Richard Nixon thought he could survive Watergate, has a President been so detached from reality. Nixon’s delusions put the nation in a constitutional crisis, and Obama’s threaten a security crisis. This crisis is even more acute for Europe, which has faced a tsunami of migrants entering without any vetting. Plus, its Schengen area policy of open borders has allowed these migrants to travel to any member state with minimal if any tracking, making it impossible for any government to know who is in their country at any given time. Each European nation is only as safe as the nation with the weakest borders, in this case Greece (austerity to deal with its budget debacle has crippled its ability to police borders and hold migrants). This migrant crisis, coupled with returned foreign fighters, exacerbates Europe’s security situation. Amazingly even though his own FBI director has expressed concerns about our vetting, Obama wants to accept at least 10,000 Syrian refugees and has suggested anyone who opposes him is a bigot (I would note the presumed head of Senate Democrats, Chuck Schumer, happens to have reservations about the current system). Obama has avoided policy debate and simply attacked the character of those who oppose him on this issue. The rational decision is to suspend the program for 3 months, ensure all vetting is done to acceptable standards, and then if concerns are dealt with, reopen the program.

For 18 months, we have watched ISIS grow like a cancer as Obama underestimated them and then employed a wrongheaded policy of containment. He touts launching 8,000 airstrikes, though this amounts to ~20/day, less than 1/5 the pace of Bill Clinton’s strikes in Serbia. On Monday, Obama had the gall to say, “We have been fully aware of the potential capabilities of them carrying out a terrorist attack. That’s precisely why we have been mounting a very aggressive strategy to go after them.” That is indisputably untrue; our bombing campaign has been anything but aggressive. These strikes barely manage to slow the advance of ISIS but do nothing to roll back its capacity. Our President’s policies are that of an inveterate invertebrate. He fecklessly dithers, leaving us in a situation where there are no easy options. In 2013, we should have enforced a no-fly zone and aided the Free Syrian Army in their fight against Assad, but Obama backed away from his own red-line.

Now, Russia is propping up Assad, moderate rebels have been squeezed from both sides, and ISIS has a serious foothold. A full no-fly zone risks confrontation with Putin. Considering how Obama backed down to Assad and Putin in Crimea, it is hard to see Putin taking our no-fly zone seriously. The temptation to partner with him is tantalizing, put aside the Assad question now, deal with ISIS, and then work on Assad. Aligning with Putin is like sleeping with the devil, fun at first not so good in the long run. If we deal with ISIS together, there is no pressure for Putin to support removing Assad (except to replace him with another crony—any crony will do!).

Instead, the US must significantly intensify our airstrikes, encourage rather than discourage France to invoke Article 5 of NATO, and build a Western coalition to systematically roll back ISIS. This means directly arming the Kurds, whom we have long-standing relations with and who are adept fighters. US troops embedded with the Kurds and FSA, Gulf partners providing ground troops, and NATO air-strikes and some ground troops can decisively roll back ISIS. Simultaneously, we need to create safe zones where refugees can go in Syria and Jordan, financed by the West, to keep refugees from flooding Europe. We, both Western and Muslim states, then need to maintain a presence to help new governments in Iraq and Syria build the institutions and structural strength to endure. This is a battle among civilizations, and we need to treat it as such.

The idea containment would ever work is a pure fallacy, perpetrated by an administration unable to deal with ISIS and unwilling to admit its mistakes. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Obama continues to delude himself into believing the strategy is working. If we continue on this course, the threat ISIS poses to the Western world will only grow. I fear a world in which Paris is not an anomaly but the beginning of a long string of attacks, apparently we barely avoided another in Germany Tuesday. Simply containing ISIS allows them more time and space to develop their capabilities and export there terror. We need to get tough now; to do otherwise is to gamble the security of our homeland and that of our allies.

  1. President Obama Has Shamed this Nation

This (briefer) section pivots away from my policy critique and focuses instead on the character of our President. While I have never been a fan of his simplistic and pessimistic policy platform, I have long considered President Obama to be a good man and have defended him to fellow conservatives as such (at the expense of being dubbed a RINO occasionally). As his administration progressed, this has been a tougher argument to make, particularly after he blatantly lied about his healthcare plan (you can keep your doctor…). However, there is a difference between telling a lie and shaming the nation, or at the very least, there needs to be a very high standard when it comes to saying someone has shamed the nation (Nixon is the lone President whom I had previously put in this basket in the post-WWII era). Monday that changed.

While on the Sunday shows, Rhodes suggested Paris was a “setback.” People do misspeak or overstate their case, particularly on talk shows, and I aim to give all the benefit of the doubt, despite the callousness of that remark. Then on Monday, we were presented with dueling remarks from French President Hollande and Obama. Hollande powerfully declared to his nation: “France is at war. No barbarians will prevent us from living how we have decided to live. To live fully. Terrorism will never destroy the republic, because the republic will destroy terrorism.” Hollande understands the stakes of this battle. We are dealing with suicidal maniacs who want the world to burn, and we need to pulverize them. Hollande is seizing the gravity of this moment to eradicate a great evil from this earth.

Our President could not match this rhetoric. Instead, Obama doubled down on Rhodes line, saying, “The terrible events in Paris were a terrible and sickening setback.” Setback was not an off-the-cuff remark, it was clearly chosen in advance by our President to describe the Paris attack after being test-run by Rhodes Sunday. Our oldest ally has just suffered its worst terrorist attack since World War II, and that is all Obama has to offer. Families were destroyed, innocent civilians murdered, and children’s lives and sense of safety have been forever destroyed. This is not a mere setback; Friday we saw the face of evil. Even Orwellian newspeak cannot contemplate such emotionless verbiage.

Our President takes no issue calling his political opponents immature racists who are helping ISIS recruit (he did so earlier this evening!), yet he has no moral outrage to show psychopathic terrorists? Meanwhile, his Secretary of State suggests we shouldn’t be so shocked about the Charlie Hebdo shooting from earlier this year as though you make yourself a target merely by engaging in political discourse. That is anathema to the founding principles of this country, and the Western world.

Our President demeans fellow republicans with alarming ease but is incapable of calling out true evil on the world stage. Is he afraid of offending ISIS? There is no rationale for this cowardice. America is the world’s moral beacon, and as such, we have a responsibility, no a duty, to stand with allies and call out evil, yet we paper over a vicious action that has rocked France to its very core. In doing so, Obama is abdicating the moral authority of his office, and undermining our position in the world. We are seeing a stunning, virtually unprecedented, absence of leadership. How can we rally the world against evil when our President is all but unwilling to acknowledge its existence?

Obama’s remarks in the aftermath of Paris are unfathomable and show a moral compass gone haywire. The slaughtering of over 100 civilians is not a setback; that language is disgraceful, particularly when contrasted with the language he uses to demonize republicans. I shudder at a President who shrugs off allied civilian mass murders. We have a responsibility to lead the world, and Obama is throwing away our moral authority, which is particularly astonishing since he went on an apology tour over our supposed sins to restore it.

This is disgusting. Decency and a love for humanity demands anger, pain, and condemnation when discussing Paris or any terrorist attack. Hollande understands this; virtually all civilized people do. Yet, our President is so busy playing politics, he can see it as a mere setback in his strategy. Tell that to the families of the murdered.

President Obama has been disgraceful in the aftermath of these attacks, and I feel ashamed he is our representative to the world.

 

 

Ignoring History: The Lawlessness of Obama Executive Orders

On Tuesday, the Senate overwhelmingly passed the National Defense Authorization Act 91-3, leaving President Obama no choice but to sign it in lieu of suffering a humiliating veto override. Within the act, there is a provision banning the President from moving the enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay (GITMO) into the United States or third countries, thereby blocking the President from fulfilling his wrongheaded campaign promise in a stunningly bipartisan fashion.

Not to be deterred by an act of Congress (he is only an inveterate invertebrate when dealing with real enemies like Russia and Iran after all), the White House has hinted the President may use executive powers to flout popular will and bring detainees into the US anyway. Some like Senator Dianne Feinstein and others are suggesting the President could have the authority to do this under his Constitutional Powers as our Commander-in-Chief. They argue the President has essentially unlimited powers over just about any tactical decision in war-time. Funny, precisely these arguments have been made before, only to be blasted in one of the most important Supreme Court decisions you probably haven’t heard about (more on that below!).

These current arguments calling for more power to be placed in the executive are particularly rich, coming in a week when a Federal Appeals Court upheld an injunction on Obama’s executive order rewriting our nation’s immigration laws. Now, the President is turning to the Supreme Court hoping for a more receptive hearing; however, the case in favor of his order is so dubious he spent years explaining how he couldn’t “fix” immigration laws by executive fiat.

One’s view of the constitutionality of his immigration order and potential GITMO one should transcend your view of whether they are wise policy. The core issue is exactly how much power is vested in each branch of government, not whether the underlying policy is well-intentioned. While questions of process often illicit droopy eyes, its importance cannot be understated. Our founders built an intricate system of checks and balances to carefully ward off tyranny, and upsets in this balance can have long-lasting implications. We can take for granted how much of a historical (and sadly even contemporary) anomaly the peaceful transition of power we enjoy every Inauguration day is.

I’m not saying we are on the verge of despotic rule; the issue here is cut and dry so there is no need to hyperbolize. Rather, it is about ensuring that powers remain at the proper branch to avoid the tyranny of one branch over another at the expense of public’s will. Allowing power to wrongly accumulate risks an incremental, creeping tyranny. For 85 years, we have seen more power coalesce around the Presidency, primarily at the expense of the legislature, a phenomenon that has happened under both parties’ watch, to the point where congressional law at times feel like mere guidelines for the President. Here on GITMO in particular, we have a congress asserting its right, but a President looking to ignore it anyway, the public’s opinion be damned.

In actuality (where I happen to live), this is not an unprecedented situation, rather there is a specific precedent that crystallizes the illegality of such an executive order. In 1950, Harry Truman was President, and we were waging war in the Korea Peninsula. Truman faced a steelworker’s strike, which would have disrupted the supply of arms to our forces. Truman saw keeping steel mills open as a matter of national security. Now, Congress had passed two laws, the Taft-Hartley Act and the Selective Service Act (its applicability in this case can be debated), which could have been used to keep the mills operating. Instead, he circumvented the will of Congress and unilaterally seized the plants to be run under the watchful eye of the Federal Government. Believe it or not, legal calamity ensued.

In a 6 to 3 decision in Youngstown v. Sawyer, the Court delivered one of the biggest pushbacks against a Presidential power grab in the century. Truman’s argument that his war powers granted him the ability to seize private property was found sorely wanting. In his concurring opinion (which is the opinion whose influence has endured time in this case), Justice Robert Jackson explained the three tiers of Presidential power (courtesy of Findlaw, emphasis mine):

  1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. In these circumstances, [343 U.S. 579, 636] and in these only, may he be said (for what it may be worth) to personify the federal sovereignty. If his act is held unconstitutional under these circumstances, it usually means that the Federal Government [343 U.S. 579, 637] as an undivided whole lacks power. A seizure executed by the President pursuant to an Act of Congress would be supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it.
  2. When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law.
  3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling [343 U.S. 579, 638] the Congress from acting upon the subject. Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.

Essentially, Jackson believes the Court needs to view Presidential power in three ways. In the first situation when the President is acting thanks to an act of congress, he has the most authority (both his and Congress’s combined). In the second, Congress is silent, which could lead to a fuzzy gray area over whether it is Congressional or Presidential authority. This means the President is not due the same level of deference as when Congress acts alongside him. In the third situation, the President acts against an act of Congress (either clear or implied), so his power is at the lowest ebb because the Court needs to disable Congress’s ability to legislate in that area. As such, the Court would be ruling for the President and against the Congress, threatening the balance of powers.

Incidentally, the President’s immigration executive order falls squarely into the third category where he is trying to move directly against the intent of our immigration laws. As congress indisputably has the authority to write our immigration laws, the President’s power here is non-existent, and his executive order is blatantly lawless.

Now while Gitmo also clearly falls into the third category, it is a bit trickier constitutionally as the President definitely has more power when it comes to waging war than in domestic affairs, though this power is not absolute. In Youngstown, Jackson found Truman was in the third scenario as well—the parallel fortuitously continues. The Court did determine that Congressional laws dictating the process for dealing with strikes (that were totally ignored by Truman) were still relevant during war-time as the powers of the Commander-in-Chief are actually “cryptic” to quote Jackson contrary to what Obama’s cheering squad now suggests. Jackson goes on (emphasis mine):

He has no monopoly of “war powers,” whatever they are. While Congress cannot deprive the President of the command of the army and navy, only Congress can provide him an army or navy to command. It is also empowered to make rules for the “Government and Regulation of land and naval Forces,” by which it may to some unknown extent impinge upon even command functions.

This statement clearly goes against the pre-planned argument from Obama’s allies that Congress is meddling in tactical matters. That fact is not in and of itself problematic, particularly because we are dealing in part with an internal issue where the President would be bringing enemy combatants into the United States itself. Jackson eloquently notes the danger of letting a President use his foreign powers to assert additional powers within our borders (emphasis mine):

But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation’s armed forces to some foreign venture….

 

This argument holds whether we are dealing with enemy combatants or steel plants. The idea our elected representatives would be powerless over what happens within our country is abhorrent to the very essence of democracy. Moreover, this line of attack doesn’t just come from our Courts, it is directly address by our founders themselves. Jackson again (emphasis mine if you hadn’t caught on by now):

That military powers of the Commander in Chief were not to supersede representative government of internal affairs seems obvious from the Constitution and from elementary American history. Time out of mind, and even now in many parts of the world, a military commander can seize private housing to shelter his troops. Not so, however, in the United States, for the Third Amendment says, “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” Thus, even in war time, his seizure of needed military housing must be authorized by Congress.

Our founders went out of their way to expressly give our Congress legislative power in a tactical matter (housing soldiers) when it occurs on our soil. Ironically, many feel like the 3rd amendment is quaint if not anachronistic, serving no purpose in a modern society such as ours. They are wrong as the wider applicability is clear. The founders did not envision a President being able to take total power, Roman dictator style, during a time of war. They went out of their way to carve a role for Congress when the matters of war are internal in nature. How often in the course of human history have we seen dictators use foreign adventures as an excuse to tighten their grip back home? That is anathema to our carefully crafted constitution, ensuring democracy and balanced powers in peace and war time alike.

Given this reasoning, it isn’t hard to see that Congressional laws in that 1952 case were relevant and that Truman over-stepped. Was Truman attempting to become a dictator? Of course not; in totality, he was still one of our finer Presidents. This was merely a case where he reached too far in a time of war, and the Supreme Court took the opportunity to draw a clear line in the sand regarding Presidential power. By the same token, one doesn’t have to think Obama is a dictator to find his executive orders to be an overreach.

If there is any cogent argument differentiating a GITMO executive order from Truman’s in Youngstown v. Sawyer, I have yet to come across it. With Obama planning to sign the NDAA that has GITMO restrictions, any executive order would clearly fall in Jackson’s third scenario (contradiction with Congress’s intent) where Presidential authority is at its weakest. Bringing detainees into the United States proper is without a doubt an internal matter, giving Congress the constitutional power to legislate on the issue. That simple fact evaporates what legs that aspect of order stands on.

What about the aspect of the law that bans the President from sending detainees to Libya, Syria, or elsewhere? Does the fact the United States proper is not involved negate the specific “internal” Congressional powers implied by the 3rd amendment? In short, no. In 2008’s Boumediene v. Bush, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion makes clear the US has “de facto” sovereignty over GITMO, making the fundamental rights of the constitution applicable there. This ruling functionally makes GITMO “internal,” providing Congress with authority. In other words, Congress has the power to put restrictions on the closure of GITMO and transfer inmates anywhere, not just to the United States but to Libya and other third countries as well.

Looking at simple Supreme Court precedent underlines the sheer lawlessness of Obama’s plans. In Youngstown, Presidential powers are clearly delineated, and on both immigration (where Courts are already standing up) and GITMO (where an executive order may be in the works), his power is at its nadir. Plus, it now appears Democrats plan to argue that being in war gives a President absolute power (funny, it seems like just 8 years ago they argued the opposite), but this does not jive with our history or the obvious intent of our founders and is really an effort to stack powers inside an Imperial President. No matter your policy preference, this is dangerous as it takes power away from the power of the people’s representatives in Congress who are a necessary check. Our constitutional balance of power is a delicate one; we mustn’t unnecessarily tamper with it and risk breaking it for our next generation. Certainly not to score cheap political points.

Obama has been fond of shamelessly saying Republicans want a return to the 1950’s for women’s rights. Well, it appears in his zeal over studying 1950’s contraception policy, he skipped over that decade’s constitutional lessons. Ironic; he was a constitutional professor after all. Must’ve skipped those classes.

 

Doomed to Fail: A President Dithers

During a 60 Minutes interview in which President Obama could only offer rambling and incoherent answers to Steve Kroft’s fair and pointed foreign policy questions, the President did manage to shed new, and rather unflattering, light on his disastrous Syria policy. After backing down from his own red line when Bashar al-Assad gassed his own people, Obama decided to launch a $500 million rebel training program whereby the United States would train moderate fighters to oust Assad. With only 4 or 5 trained rebels currently fighting in Syria, it is safe to call this program a failure. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. After all, the President himself said last night, “I’ve been skeptical from the get-go” that the training program would work.

What does it say about a President who built a strategy around a program he deemed doomed to fail? How callous to watch thousands of Syrians die each month at the hands of Assad, and now ISIS, while pursuing a program that you don’t believe can work. It is one thing to try and fail; it is entirely different to pretend to try and fail. In a Presidency chock full of stunning admissions, this has to rank near the top of the list. The Syrian Civil War has raged for over 3 years, and the only strategy the Administration could come up with was essentially fictitious.

While dithering away time and letting Syria devolve into one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises of the past quarter-century, he’s let ISIS stand up and fill the power vacuum. The President doesn’t even have a plan to deal with ISIS, saying that over time “the community of nations” will deal with ISIS. What is this community the President speaks of? China enjoys all the perks of being a world power without assuming any responsibilities, Europe hasn’t led in decades, and Russia is directly flouting Obama’s high-minded goals. The concept of such a community is noble and works well as a dissertation at Columbia University but is dangerously simplistic when applied in the real world. A community of nations only exists when America plays the leading role.

Instead, Obama has stepped back and is now letting Vladimir Putin decimate the rebels we’ve aided without impunity from the air. What message does this send to other potential allies in the region? The US will not stand by you when times get tough, which will undermine our ability to form strategic relations in the region for years. With Putin allied with Iran—the region’s aspiring hegemon—the moderates are being wiped out, leaving only Assad and ISIS, an unpalatable choice, and the Russia-Iran axis will inevitably pivot to push back ISIS from Syria and Iran all while the President awaits for the community of nations to respond.

The overarching failure of President Obama’s foreign policy is a simple one: he dithers until the United States is left with virtually no winning option. In Syria, we could have provided substantive support for moderate rebels and toppled Assad. Now any action risks direct military conflict with Russia, and quickly, the only two feasible options are ISIS or Assad. Three years ago, we had options that could tip the balance in our favor; now, there are none.

In Iraq, we could have signed a “status of forces” agreement to leave residual troops in Iraq, continue to train their military, and ensure the hard-fought gains we made were kept. Instead, Obama made no serious effort to get this agreement, pulled out entirely, leaving Iraq weak and vulnerable, and leaving it easy for ISIS to take large swaths of territory. Now, what is left of Iraq is morphing into an Iranian client state as the US has unilaterally ceded all influence. Obama could have kept troops in Iraq, or he could have provided serious assistance in the fight against ISIS last year. Instead, he has done as little as possible and somehow allowed a nation we spent a decade building to align with our major rivals, Iran and Russia.

In 2014, Obama had a chance to swiftly respond to Russia’s illegal seizure of Crimea by providing arms to the Kiev government and restart the Eastern Europe missile defense shield, a real cost in Putin’s eyes. These actions could have stopped Putin in his tracks, winning Crimea but realizing the rest of Ukraine would not be worth the fight. Instead, Obama merely lectured Putin, so he launched a covert operation in East Ukraine and essentially split the country in two. What can the US do now apart from some meaningless sanctions? Providing the necessary support to the Ukrainian government to roll back Russia would be exceedingly costly and risk direct military confrontation with a nuclear power while giving Putin cover to escalate his involvement. The other option, to accept Russian expansion, would be the most humiliating strategic defeat against Russia since the Carter Administration. By doing virtually nothing serious for 18 months in Ukraine, we face another no-win situation.

Last, Obama foolishly loosened sanctions on Iran just for coming to the negotiating table, ceding the leverage that brought them there. At that point, reasserting the sanctions was all but an impossibility, forcing us to accept an embarrassingly weak deal. Iran doesn’t even care about the few restrictions in the deal, testing a long range missile this week despite that likely being forbidden in the text. They know this administration won’t do anything to nullify the deal because we could never get Russia and China to okay sanctions at the UN again. If we had actually kept sanctions in place during the negotiation, we would have maintained leverage and been able to reach a good deal with real verification. Either we accept a flawed deal that lets Iran become a threshold nuclear state over a decade or we isolate ourselves diplomatically by exiting the deal and imposing further sanctions ourselves.

From Syria to Iraq to Russia to Iran, Obama has been so consistently wrong and soft that we are left with a host of complex situation where there is no clear option for the US. In each situation, had we acted swiftly, we could have gained the initiative and reached a strategically favorable outcome. Instead, American power is being challenged around the world. That is the legacy of this President. His successor will have to navigate minefields just to scrape out draws, by aggressively reasserting our military presence to assuage panicked allies in the Middle East and Eastern Europe alike while reminding bad actors like Putin that the U.S. really is a force to be reckoned with.

Obama’s Presidency is one of bungled opportunities. Would you expect less from a man who expects his own policies to fail?

Beware Russians Bearing Gifts

When addressing the United Nations’ General Assembly on Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin will surely have a swagger in his step. Thanks to his reassertion of Russian power on the world stage over the Ukrainian crisis, Putin enjoys domestic popularity that Western leaders would salivate over—despite an economy in recession and overly reliant on exporting oil and gas. On top of this, Putin can take additional delight over his ability to reshape the West’s thinking over the Syrian crisis almost overnight by deploying forces to aid President Bashar al-Assad. Putin is now offering assistance in fighting ISIS and supposedly is even willing to fight ISIS single-handedly. However, we must view this offer with deep skepticism. Often, accepting gifts from enemies is a dangerous proposition.

With over 200,000 dead and millions displaced, the Syrian civil war has devolved into arguably the world’s worst humanitarian crisis since Rwanda, and our failure to do anything substantive merits significant blame for this. Europe prefers to live in blissful decline than carry its weight in the Middle East and now faces refugee inflows unseen since the end of World War II, putting tremendous pressure on its political union. At the same time, the President failed to act when Assad crossed his red line by gassing his own people. Our effort to arm moderate rebels has been a total embarrassment; for $500 million, we have trained “4 or 5” active fighters. Considering our government lacks the competence to even count with confidence to 5, it is no wonder this training program has failed at every level.

Unfortunately, power vacuums inevitably get filled; that is the one time-tested truth of geopolitics. By abdicating our leadership role, we left space that has since been filled by ISIS, leaving us with a civil war where both sides are evil. Fight ISIS and the child-gassing Assad stays in power; fight Assad and watch an apocalyptic terrorist state reign. The moderate rebels have been all but vanquished in the cross-fire. From Syria to Ukraine to the Iran deal, the bumbling of the Obama Administration has consistently left the United States with no-win situations.

Our calls for Assad to go have virtually no credibility given our unwillingness to do anything about it. Assad’s days have supposedly been numbered for years after all. At the same time, our effort to roll back ISIS from the air alone is proving to be ineffectual. Since stopping its advance on Mosul, ISIS has regrouped, solidified its territory, and controls large swaths of Iraq and Syria. Containing it is simply not a viable long-term strategy, and when the White House resorts to using inaccurate intelligence, you can be sure things are not going swimmingly.

Enter Russia.

Putin needs to keep Assad in power or at least ensure that a pro-Russia government takes power. Russia has a strategically critical naval base in Tartus, providing the Navy with a year round warm water hub and a replenishment base on the Mediterranean Sea. Putin cannot allow a regime that would threaten this base take power. At the same time, having risen to power in part thanks to his aggressive response to Chechen terrorists, Putin does understand the threat Islamic extremism poses to the world and probably sees the need to crush ISIS. As such, he has moved troops, tanks, and aircraft to Syria to assist Assad. With Russian assistance, Assad can stabilize the fight and even take some territory back.

Putin is now reaching out to the President to form a joint task force to fight ISIS and resolve the Syrian Civil War. While Putin may accept Assad gradually leaving power over time, Putin wants Assad at the negotiating table, a prolonged transition, and assurances any new government will be in-keeping with Russia’s strategic interests. Make no mistake, the timing of this military buildup is not coincidental. Putin is looking to gain leverage into the UN General Assembly where he can make a triumphant return to the world stage and show his citizenry the key role he played in solving this crisis. Putin has picked the perfect time to apply pressure and force the West’s hand.

Already, our European allies are ready to sign on. Nations like Austria and France now appear willing to let Assad remain in power for some time—perhaps indefinitely.

We mustn’t strike a deal with Putin so easily as there is a significant cost. Putin sees the U.S. retreating from the world, particularly the Middle East, and he has the ability to turn Russia into the regional power. Now with its lackluster and unproductive economy, Russia can do little to project power outwardly and compete with the US by itself (though its national will and nuclear arsenal keep it from being influenced by the United States). However, Russia with one or two regional powers can form hegemonic alliances that can effectively counter US power.

We have already seen Putin pivot East, ensuring Russia will be China’s primary energy supplier for decades as he tries to ally with a rising global power and project strength in the Pacific Basin. At the same time, with $150 billion in fresh funds, an economy unshackled, and 77 million people, Iran has the potential to be the regional power in the Middle East, usurping Saudi Arabia over time. Of course, this is another nation Putin is hitching his horse to. Iraq has turned to Iran for help fighting ISIS since Obama has all but abandoned the region. Shia Iraq is quickly turning into Iran’s proxy.

Similarly, Assad is merely an Iranian proxy, and a proxy Iran needs to keep funneling Hezbollah weaponry. Assad is the key to Iran maintaining its sphere of influence throughout Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. This is the danger of inviting Russian participation in a coalition against ISIS and accepting Assad at the negotiating table. Doing so guarantees a Russian-Iranian axis that extends from the Gulf to the Mediterranean. All the while, Russia makes overtures to Egypt and Turkey, which become all the more compelling as Russian dominance in the region becomes clearer. Even without these two nations, this turn of events would be devastating for the United States, shifting the balance of power away from us in the region and isolating the Gulf States who could turn to nuclear weapons to re-balance—opening the door to an arms race in the most volatile part of the globe.

The case for accepting Putin’s offer today may he compelling in the short-term. 2,000 Russian troops would help in the fight against ISIS, and since we have dithered for so long, there is no viable moderate opposition anymore. This makes our position that Assad must go less tenable—there is no one who can replace him. But to strike a deal with Putin today is to ensure Russian influence in the Middle East only grows over time as the balance shifts towards the Russian-Iranian axis. Plus working with him likely weakens Europe’s resolve to maintain sanctions over Ukraine, which will provide his economy with much needed oxygen.

Are we really prepared to welcome Vladimir Putin back to the world stage as the central dealmaker and risk ceding regional influence to him? A weak-willed Europe unwilling to do anything to actually deal with ISIS and Syria is. The United States should not be. Instead of striking the proverbial deal with the devil, the US should fight to win against ISIS, re-engage with Iraq, deploy 10-15,000 ground troops, roll back ISIS, and pry Iraq back away from Iran. Then with ISIS on the run into Syria, we again have leverage over Putin and can resolve the situation there in a more advantageous fashion. Yes, this strategy is more costly today than Putin’s offer of expedient assistance but it will pay dividends in years to come as Russia remains the outsider looking in at the Middle East.