Does Syria matter? It matters to Israel… It matters to Russia… It matters to Iran

General Martin Dempsey

Syria was in the news again last week.  You may not have noticed.  What, with  more important news like a royal baby.  In case you missed it, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff presented the Senate Armed Services Committee with a three-page letter outlining America’s military options vis-à-vis Syria. 

Aren’t we all a little war-weary?  We still have troops in Afghanistan (105 casualties this year).  We have spent over $1Trillion on two wars and have yet to come to grips with either the social or financial impact of thousands of wounded warriors coming home.

So, why is the Obama administration wringing its hands over Syria?  Is it conceivable that we would add it to the list of countries where we have intervened militarily?

Syria, a former Soviet ally, serves as the western anchor for a potentially powerful Iranian coalition. Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Arab running a Shia nation from a minority position, was an obstacle to the formation of that coalition.  Now Iran, whose paranoia was fed by having thousands of U.S. troops amassed in nations bordering them to the east and the west, has an opportunity. 

Stir Russia into the mix.  Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia’s sphere of influence contracted.  Russia now seeks to extend its influence to the Middle East and Southern Asia without using its military.  They have taken advantage of a financially weakened Europe by both making it dependent upon them for energy and by acquiring assets throughout the continent.  It is not in their interest for energy sources outside its control to be available to Europe.

International diplomacy is a game of maintaining a balance of power among competing strategic players.  The smarter of them will take advantage of world events to tip the balance in their favor.  Russia sees opportunity in an alliance with Iran by supporting the Assad regime in Syria.

The U.S. is typically an unsophisticated player on this stage.  Our geographic isolation and domestic concerns place international affairs way down the list on the matters that concern most voters.  Following a major military engagement, we hear the same old aphorisms.  “America can’t be the world’s policeman.”  “Someone else should step up.”  “We have problems here at home.”

The result is inconsistency and the risk is that potential allies do not see us as reliable partners.

Diplomacy – like nature – abhors a vacuum.  We have seen what happens when we don’t become involved.  Yugoslavia and Rwanda come to mind. 

And, it may be that our adversaries in the region see us as creating a vacuum by virtue of our inability to form a cohesive, consistent, successful foreign policy since the collapse of the Soviet Union.  The rush to fill the void may heighten the risk of war.

It’s in America’s interest to limit both Iranian and Russian power.  And, it must do so without considering its military power as its first option.  The U.S. can only afford to support those countries that take responsibility for their national security interests themselves.  We cannot be the first source of that security.  We need to develop a low-risk strategy that doesn’t rely upon knee-jerk military responses.

The entire world knows that the U.S. has neither the political will nor the resources to occupy and govern an Asian nation.  However, we can provide support through arms, training, air and sea power.  Coupled with trade, a sustainable alliance of this nature allows our allies to be secure in the idea that we will not abandon them.

So, what are our diplomatic options?  How do we create an alliance that will serve our interests and tip the balance of power in our favor?

The Caucasus region is where both the Russian and Persian empires converge with Turkey (the empire that collapsed as the Soviet empire emerged).  The nation at the nexus of that convergence is Azerbaijan.  A hundred years ago, half the world’s oil was produced in Azerbaijan. 

But, even when the royal baby isn’t in the headlines, we don’t hear about Azerbaijan, a tiny nation that has become a centerpiece of Israeli foreign policy.  Its government has longstanding grievances with Iran – over control of bordering territory primarily.  A secular Muslim nation (hard to come by), it accuses Iran of supporting Islamist, anti-government factions within its borders.

So, Azerbaijan has formed a substantial trading relationship with Israel, selling it oil and acquiring weapons and military materiel in exchange.  The U.S. should leverage this relationship for its benefit. Israel has “stepped up” as we have stood down.  It is imperative that we continue to support their efforts. 

Now that the royal baby has been named, maybe we can start paying attention to something that matters.

WHO WILL LEAD?

GM, Ford, Chrysler… Does the end justify the means?

Have you heard?  People everywhere (except Europe) are buying cars again.  Automotive News reports that June’s U.S. auto sales are up for six consecutive years. They project 16 million for the full year.  Further, they report that each of the Detroit Big 3 gained market share in the first six months of 2013. 

That’s a far cry from the reports out of Detroit a few years ago.

More interesting is that foreign manufacturers are locating more factories here in the U.S.  Is that a good thing?  You bet.  When companies from another country invest here it creates jobs no matter what the nameplate on the car.  Indeed, Nissan, Mercedes, Toyota, Honda, BMW and the rest are exporting cars from their U.S. factories to the rest of the world.

Bloomberg recently ranked the U.S. as the third most attractive country to locate a business behind Hong Kong and the Netherlands.  China? They’re number 19. 

How can that be?  Here’s how.  While it’s true that the weaker dollar has caused the effective labor cost to drop, what’s more important is that the U.S. is well integrated into the global economy through its transportation and communications systems, has the wealthiest consumer base and is a rules-based economy. 

Global investors – business owners, corporate executives, shareholders -- are more likely to put their money into a venture governed by a reliable set of regulations, taxes, policies, etc.  “The rule of law” is very important to them.

Rule of law is a confusing term and, used in other than economic contexts, can be construed as “rule according to law” or “rule under the law”.  Dictionary.com provides a concise definition thusly:  “the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable to law that is fairly applied and enforced; the principle of government by law.”

Was the rule of law abandoned a few years ago when the automakers were circling the toilet for the third time?  Fearful that hundreds of thousands of jobs would be flushed along with the shareholders money, the government intervened, first under the Bush administration, to loan TARP money the automakers and, then under the Obama administration, to engineer a restructuring of both GM and Chrysler through bankruptcy proceedings.

Critics howled but fear ruled the day.  So, what would have happened if the government hadn’t stepped in?  Many of my friends and colleagues have speculated that private investors would have acquired the assets through a Section 363 sale in bankruptcy court.  GM could probably have been had for about $10 billion, chump change for the private equity industry. 

But, I am not so sure.  We were all in a panic in the first half of 2009.  No one was quite sure what would happen next.  Investors like a stable environment in which they can place their bets.  2009 was anything but stable.   Mike Jackson, CEO of AutoNation (NYSE:AN) the nation’s largest auto dealer, has often said, “it’s pains me as a conservative Republican to say this…” but the U.S automakers would not have survived if the government hadn’t taken action.  He goes on to support the oft-reported view that the a GM liquidation would have unraveled the supply chain and brought down many other companies in the industry, causing not only job losses but also disruption of the global economy.  And, this was at a time when the U.S. Federal Reserve was still putting the Humpty-Dumpty financial services industry together again.

Principles are important.  Our leaders, both Republicans and Democrats, violated so many sound principles of capitalism during the nine-month span between the Lehman bankruptcy and the GM bankruptcy that it’s hard to keep track.  The most prolific of the Austrian school of economics, Friedrich Hayek, in his most important work The Road to Serfdom, said, “nothing distinguishes more clearly conditions in a free country from those in a country under arbitrary government than the observance in the former of the great principles known as the Rule of Law”.

But, there is no line in the sand that can distinguish between actions that satisfy the principles of the rule of law.  Both the President and the Chair of the Federal Reserve are given a great deal of discretion.  Here’s what George W. Bush told CNN in December 2008, a month before he turned the reins of government over to his successor.  "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system, to make sure the economy doesn't collapse."

We’ll never know what might have happened if the government hadn’t exercised its discretion.  But, no President wants to preside over the collapse of the economy.

WHO WILL LEAD?

It's Not Religion... It's Not Politics... It's Personal!

Peter and me

“Was it difficult to adjust to it?”  That’s what she asked me.  “Was it difficult to adjust to what?” I replied.  “To your son being gay.”

I am not sure anyone had ever asked me that question before.  I have become accustomed to answering the standard questions about family.  How many kids?  How old? etc.  We were at a weekend retreat for Vistage chairs.  So, even though we have only known each other for a few months, we knew each other well.  It’s an experience that really opens you up.  So, the question didn’t really throw me.  It just surprised me a bit.

Her question forced me to dredge up those long ago memories.  Yes, it was difficult.  And, it was difficult for years.

We have such extraordinary expectations of our children and, even if we can curb our tendency to impose them too harshly, they know what those expectations are.  Very few parents expect their children to be gay or envision their prospective spouse to be of the same sex.  I never expressed that to my son.  I didn’t have to.

The woman who asked the question is the mother of three teenagers (two boys and a girl).  So, I asked her two simple questions.

“Do you love your children?”  Yes, of course she does.

“Do you want them to be happy?”  The question answers itself. 

She went on a bit about her eldest son and the girl he had brought home.  I gather she hopes for someone better or maybe different.  I understand where she’s at.  I’ve been there.  There was a time when my greatest worry was that my son would marry the young girl he dated in college.  His mother and I married too young and I didn’t want him to make the same mistake. 

Little did I know at the time …

Robert Holden, Ph.D. has done extensive work on happiness in children and adults.  He has surveyed mothers in 67 countries about their wishes for their children.  By far, the number one response no matter the culture, race or religion is that their children be happy.  Not wealthy or wise…  happy! 

Dr. Holden would suggest that our challenge as parents is to learn from our children as much as we teach them.   “… it's important to understand that you cannot make your children happy,”  he counsels.  “That said, there is plenty you can do to encourage them to be happy. The distinction between making and encouraging is a vital one. Parents who believe they can make their children happy are prone to making other mistakes like trying too hard to be a good parent, intervening too much, being over controlling and believing they always know what's best for their children.”

That the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and allowed the states to call the shots was foreseeable.  For the Justices, the issue is not a family matter but rather a

legal one.  A conservative court that hews closely to the Constitution as it was written was bound to abide by the 10thAmendment and the Equal Protection clause.  Preventing gays from marrying penalizes them in the whole host of matters from adoption/custody to health decisions to taxes. 

Following the announcement last week, the person-on-the-street interviews conducted by NPR ran the gamut from those who are elated like my son to those who think homosexuality is an abomination.  One that stood out for me was a young mother who expressed her views – not in religious or political terms – but in personal terms, saying that it was a “moral issue”.  She doesn’t want her children to be influenced by a society that condones gay marriage. 

I wish I could have asked her, “Do you love your children?”  “Do you want them to be happy?”  “And, what if one of them turns out to be gay?”

In the end, every parent learns that our children’s happiness is more important than our own aspirations for them.  What’s best for them is to support their dreams not our dreams for them.

I love my son.  I want him to be happy.

WHO WILL LEAD?