I recently saw the new Vin Diesel film:  Riddick.  It was a testosterone fueled machismo festival of epic proportions.  There was plot holes a semi truck could have been driven through.  There were flaws in terms of story and characterization.  It lacked a coherent sense of itself.

And yet I enjoyed it immensely.  It had one redeeming quality: it knew what it was about and what it was intended to be.  It was a solid escapist science fiction action film through and through.  It harkened back to what I liked about the first movie in the series: Pitch Black.  It was solid action from start to finish, and did not stray from that.

It also did not see the need to be overtly preachy.  The producers of Elysium could take a lesson from that.  It did not see the need to stray from the focus on Riddick, and his overall plight. 

My overall grade for this film is a C+.  It could have been higher, had the flaws I outlined been corrected, but all in all it was worth seeing and shelling out full price to see.

I am and have been a student of foreign policy over the course of my life.  Each generation has had its own view of, take on, and distillation of this subject.  It has seen each generation leave its own stamp on the subject, sometime for the better, and sometimes not.  Almost every derivation of the subject has seen some version of implementation, all with vary degrees of success.

I will say that American policy is at its best when it is based upon our guiding principles.  And by that I do not mean the 'foreign policy that yields lower prices for Americans' formula.  This formula leads Americans to believe they are the center of the world, and what is good for us, is also good for the rest of the world, which is patently false.  I mean a foreign policy that is based upon the ideas and ideals upon which our nation was founded.  Anything less than that is not leading with the values that drive American exceptionalism.

A foreign policy driven by the views that wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." is what we need.  We need to make clear that we as a nation are for human rights the world over.  We need to make clear that we support all efforts for people suffering under tyranny to breathe free. We need to make clear our desire that all people have a chance to seek to redress their grievances fairly before their government, without fear for life and limb reprisals from said government.  We need to establish firmly a foreign policy based solely on our desire to see despotic regimes to fade into history, and be cast upon the ask heap of failed government systems.  


Our policy should be for freedom everywhere.  We should be for freedom of speech everywhere. We should be for freedom of assembly everywhere.  We should be for freedom of worship (or not) everywhere.  We should be for participatory democratic forms the world over.  We should insist that all governments be composed entirely of the will of the people across the globe, and that those governments be subject to that will at regular intervals.


This is likely to be a hazardous policy fraught with bumpy transitions and unforeseen challenges. However, in doing so we redeem the values that generation before us fought to establish.  Only in doing so do we uphold the values that we claim to cling to.  Only in doing so do we redeem the primal purpose for our founding.  Only in doing so do we show ourselves to be a firmly committed country to the cause of liberty of all.  Anything less is a waste of effort.  Anything less is not worth being spoken, much less written down, enacted into law, and enforced.

I have lost count of the number of draft attempts I have made regarding the piece that follows.  This blog entry has been a particularly vexing article to put into words.  Largely this is the result of a fundamental flaw in how I laid out the foundation for this.  My intent originally was to persuade my fellow citizens to support the correct path.  This intention led to nothing but frustration on my part.

The more I immersed myself in the views of Mr and Mrs John Q Public in an attempt to provide a good persuasive analysis the more vexed I have become.  This immersion has led me to abandon all hope for my original premise.  I have been forced to conclude that no amount of logic, reason, or cogent persuasion will yield the result I am looking for here.  And given that Russia just made the whole thing moot with their strategic arms seclusion offer, abandoning the premise just seems right.

The immersive effort I made did allow me to arrive at a few simple conclusions that I feel compelled to share here.

-Much to my chagrin, the American people have firmly embrace once again our fundamental flaw; isolationism.
-The American people, notorious for our short memory, have forgotten the lessons we learned at great cost in regard to our lack of engagement.
-The American people are poor students, even when it comes to learning crucial lessons from our own history.
-The American people lack the will to be actively engaged in world affairs.  The current excuse is war weariness, but given that this is a consistent theme in our history, I am compelled to fervently believe the problem is much deeper and more fundamental.

These conclusions force me to pen the following open letter...


To My Fellow Americans,

Are you kidding me?  Come one man...  Is the response, it's none of our business, really the best we can do?  A nation with a track record for murdering its own people just used chemical weapons on its own people, killing thousands.  And your response is to firmly demand we remain on the sidelines.  I get that you are tired.  I get that we are winding down our involvement in Afghanistan and you wanted to enjoy peace for awhile.  That is not how the world works.  You know that.

Did 9/11 teach you nothing?  When we are not engaged in the world actively eventually the horrors being visited on others around the world come here.  If we had been actively engaged in the fight against Al Qaeda at any point, with the full force of American Power it is likely that 9/11 never would have happened.

And now looking at the horrors being visited upon innocent civilians in Syria somehow doesn't move you.  Why is that exactly?  Is it because it is halfway around the world, or is it because it doesn't have any bearing on the price of anything you purchase?  Are we really only motivated by our own craven self-interest?

What message does your insistence for American isolationism send to the despots and tyrants the world over?  Does that make them more amenable to the cause of human rights and freedom for their populations or less?  Does it make the use of weapons of mass destruction more or less likely in the future?

I would tell you to wake up, but I am convinced that is asking too much.

There have been a few developments since I wrote my first piece on the situation.  I felt those developments were worthy of an update to my original piece.

Stories in multiple publications have begun to emerge insinuating that the gas attack was not perpetrated by the Syrian government.  These stories place the blame on the rebels opposing Assad's regime.  One piece called the gas release accidental due a lack of competence with this weapon system.  The other story said it was a purposeful act to attempt to draw the west into the conflict.  One of these stories said Saudi Arabia supplied these munitions through a back room deal with the Intelligence Minister Prince Bandar.  The other story said that the weapons were looted from Syrian strategic stockpiles.

Neither piece from my perspective rises to the level of crossing the threshold of credible journalism.  Both stories cited unnamed anonymous sources for their reporting.  (As an aside, there is nothing I hate more in journalism that unnamed anonymous sources.  They can say whatever they wish and not have their credibility examined at close range.  Something I think is crucial to understanding the merit with which their 'tale' deserves.)  Both stories fail to provide evidence for their claimed assertions otherwise.  When the unnamed anonymous sources are removed both pieces fall flat with a lack of any other independent evidence.  Also, I am pretty sure that if either of these stories were true, I would be seeing this reporting on CNN, MSNBC, or FOX, or in any number of venerable print publications.  These assertions made in these stories are the sort all journalists dream of having attached exclusively to their byline or in a story featuring their name somewhere.

All of that being said, my primary assertion in the original story is still valid.  I need to know who is responsible for this act.  I don't wish in this case to fall victim to propaganda designed to rush the West into the midst of a middle eastern civil war.  Innocent lives were snuffed out in an act of unparalleled barbarism.  Those responsible need to be held to account.  This is a war crime and a violation of international law on a multitude of levels.  All indications, at this point, still place the blame on the Assad regime.

Barack announced on Saturday his intent to seek congressional approval to act.  He said he wants both houses of congress on the record supporting military action before he proceeds.  I was troubled by this announcement on several points.  There is no Constitutional power granted to the congress in this regard.  It is an outgrowth of the first Bush Administration's Gulf war strategy.  I disagreed with it then, and I do now as well.  The constitution's grant of power to congress in the foreign policy arena ends largely at the water's edge.  The Obama administration also did not gavel the congress into a special session.  It is content to wait for congress to return from its Summer recess.  And the administration is willing to accept the assurances of congress for speedy consideration of this request.

Anyone who has watched congress over any length of time knows that 'speedy consideration' is a meaningless concept.  This will likely get bogged down in partisan bickering.  Special interests of every stripe from every sector will see this as a moment to come out and attempt to advance their agenda.  Barring strong leadership and deft rules management, the final product could be a bloated Christmas tree bill filled with the vital needs to placate 535 representatives required to garner their support.  If this is not a closed rule bill that allows no amendments that precludes grandstanding, blather, and filibustering it should not be taken seriously.

Another troubling development occurred over the weekend.  Vladimir Putin emerged from his holiday bunker in Vladivostok and insisted that this matter be handled via the UN Security Council.  This is a development that could have been predicted.  Putin's government has and continues to not be interested in forgoing the billions of dollars in arms sales this conflict in Syria is putting in Russian coffers.  Every attempt in the past to bring this to an up or down vote before the security council has ended poorly.  The Syrian people suffering here do not factor into the Russian veto threats.

Any effort before the security council right now is a wasted effort.  Russia and China have not signaled any willingness to move off their unilateral myopic interests.  Justice for the Syrian people if left to the security council will end in a stillborn abortion of tragic proportions. 

If the diplomatic corps uses the time that congressional action gives to make a full court press on Russia and China, the end result might change.  The task is herculean to be sure.  The changes are slim and the odds are long.  If ever there was a time for the billions spent on the state department to be proven a wise investment it is now.  Our nation's foreign policy apparatus needs to deliver now.  The clock is ticking and innocent civilians are dying.

This is a time for courageous and bold leadership.  It is a time for statesmen to emerge and prove their worth to be greater  than the sum of their craven ego and reputations.  It is a time for our leaders to step forward and be the leader they claimed to be in their campaign tracts.

This is a high stakes moment in which words are simply not enough.  Speeches are not enough.  This moment requires daring leadership to set risk aside and push all the chips into the pot.  It demands that our philosophy become our policy.  And not just a set of words on a page.  Innocent blood shed by barbarians demands more than that.

If Assad is still in power at the end of this calendar year we will have failed.  If those responsible for this gas attack have not been held to account by then, we will have failed.  If our values haven't translated into action

By Way of a recap on the recent events in Syria....  Assad's government has been on the defensive for much of the last six months.  The rebel forces appear to be gaining strength and momentum.  Government forces are facing desertions and defections in droves.

The Anti-Assad forces recently launched a battle for Damascus or at least the suburbs.  Assad's troops have been unable to win this fight.  Thus far they have been unable to blunt this thrust, unable to dislodge the rebels from the areas they have won.  The rebels appear to firmly control the areas they occupy.  The rebels have even countered Assad's only advantage, air power with the acquisition of surplus Soviet era surface to air missiles.

Enter last week, Assad's army was unable to make any headway against the rebel forces.  It appears someone in the regime authorized the use of weapons of mass destruction.  Someone launched a massive chemical weapon attack into one of the rebel held areas outside of Damascus.  The casualties both civilian and fighter were substantial.  The overall military impact of this attack is unclear, because the WMD attack was not followed up with a sustained ground attack.

Allow me to be clear, this is not the first alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian army.  The record on this includes a long list of allegations.  To this date,  it is not clear if any of these allegations have been proven.  This most recent allegation is being vigorously investigated.

If it proves true, which given all the indication so far it will be, then it appears that the Syrian civil war has entered a new phase.  The tone and tenor of the war has shifted to a desperate one for Assad's regime.  Only a tyrant unable to put down this rebellion by conventional means would open Pandora's box in such a fashion.  Only a small minded thug would cheat like this.  Only a person bent on staying in power at all costs even if staying in power solely through fear was the only avenue would do this.

Many would see this event as bad news.  I am not one of those people.  For me, this means that the end game for this civil war is at hand.  This belief is not on the basis that a 'red line' has been crossed and the west is likely to more actively engage this situation.  It is on the bases that our strategy of support and engagement to date is working.  The Syrian army cannot win this fight through conventional force of arms.  Their opponents are now at least their equal.  The army must now use tactics that the entire world has turned their back on and find thoroughly repugnant.

Almost every nation in the world has condemned this most recent act of barbarism.  The court of public opinion has rendered its verdict on the Assad regime.  It has been weighed on the scales of justice and found wanting.  This is good news for the Syrian people.

That doesn't mean this war will end tomorrow.  The people of the western democracies are war weary.  They don't want to put soldiers on the ground to affect the outcome of this civil war.  The recent vote in the UK House of Commons is testament to this.  The polling that appeared in Le Monde and the editorials that accompanied it confirmed this.

Rightly or wrongly, this opinion, this is actually another piece of good news.  The Syrian rebels will have the opportunity to win this fight for themselves.  History will record that a ragged band of rebels, few in number, and poorly organized faced off against one of the best equipped and best organized land armies of the middle east and beat them.  The will record an impressive triumph for themselves.

The path of engagement for the US is pretty clear.  We should remove the WMD stockpiles and the weapons systems that deliver them from the field.  Whether that is solely with a series of surgical cruise missile strikes or a sustained bombing campaign is a dealer's choice option.  It we do this and can get agreement on a 'no fly zone' over Syria, while ramping up weapons shipments to the rebels, the Assad regime will crumble in a matter of months.

There are risks to be sure.  Russian and Iran have an interest in keeping Assad in power.  This will require a lot of deft skill in many realms and spheres of influence.  We need to make it clear to all involved that a signatory to the chemical weapons ban doesn't get to turn around use these weapons.  Russia will have to be persuaded to forgo its arms sales to Syria.  The task is a hard one, but our diplomatic corps needs to put on its big boy pants and get to work earning its paychecks.

The issue with Iran is a much thornier one.  Tehran has spent billions in hard currency propping up Damascus in the last two years.  Their preference for the Assad regime is clear.  That doesn't mean that their opinion cannot be changed.  It can.  That doesn't mean we should let them off the hook to do so.  Rather it means we should couple their continued support for Damascus with further action from the security council for more sanctions, tighter sanctions, and a possible full ban on all oil exports from Iran.  It is definitely possible that this stick and bigger stick approach will work.

To my fellow conservative allies allow me to say this, get out of the way.  Allow the executive branch to do what's necessary here.  These events are part of a process that is positively reshaping a region that was once known for tyrants and dictators.  Congress should advise the executive, but it should stop there.  The actions that need to be taken here belong solely to the executive branch.  Let them do what it required here.  The next generation will thank us.

Allow me to explain what I mean.  For most of my life we accepted the villain we knew over the messy transition to freedom for millions of people across the globe.  There were even those that were my teachers in my youth that taught the some people were not capable of freedom.  There are even some I know that still espouse this view.  I have always found this perspective to be the height of turgid intellectual effluence and twaddle.

This view does not square with JFK's inaugural address, 'pay any price, bear any burden' philosophy.  It does not find support with Truman's support for emerging democracies the world over.  And it does not find congruence with the values we claim to cling to.

We should support the efforts of the teeming masses to breathe freely everywhere.  We should be for human rights everywhere.  We should without question or hesitation aid any in their fight against tyranny.  In doing so we pay forward the assistance we were provided in our own struggle against tyranny.  In doing so the argument of our nation as 'the great Satan' becomes a tired and invalid proposition.  If new democracies owe a significant portion of their existence to our support material and otherwise, it makes finding foot soldiers for terror to be an infinitely harder task.

If the Arab Spring continues, more nations will cease to be run by tin horn dictators and dictatorial despots.  Imagine a middle east ruled completely by democratic governments with free and fair elections.  Imagine a middle east in which the governments exist at the will of their populations, and are composed of those chosen by the will of the electorate.  Imagine a middle east where freedom of speech and freedom of assemble were the norm, not the exception.

If the Assad regime is driven from power to either a cell in the Hague or a long overdue appointment with a firing squad, that will go a long way to cementing this as a permanent transition, and not a spring time fluke.  If Syria transitions, the middle east becomes a bit safer.  The key players in the terror trade will be without a primary state sponsor.  Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and others will find material support harder to come by.  Lebanon might actually stand a real chance at stability and peace.  The peace process in Israel might actually get somewhere for a change.

Yes Iran remains a problem even if Syria falls.  But that is tomorrow's problem.  The progress will be undeniable.  Tunisia, Iraq, Egypt, and Syria solidly no longer run by fear and tyranny.  And yes all are works in progress, but imagine where this started out two years ago.  Imagine where this could be two years from now.  Iran cannot hold back a tide this powerful for long in the face of this evidence.

This positive vision of a peaceful middle east is compelling.  It is worth committing ourselves to.  The risks are huge, but the cost for not acting is worse.  There is a window in which this world known mostly for terror, torment, and tyranny can be transliterated into something new.  It can set aside the past and freedom can ring from Tunis to Tehran.

POSTSCRIPT:  There are those that believe a darker agenda is at work here.  They fret that the Arab spring is the work of those seeking a 'greater caliphate'.  They are urging us not to support those seeking freedom for those in the middle east.  The problem with this view is that the primary players in this agenda all owe allegiance to Tehran.  And Tehran is currently seeking to keep Syria firmly in Assad's hands.  This view is disingenuously near sighted and myopic.  Not support people seeking freedom, because of one small group's future plans should not be how foreign policy is conducted now of ever.  Assisting the urge of residents around the world to be free should be what our nation is all about.