(Corrected) recalibrating
to quote our gps some days
It’s hard to overstate the vehemence of a couple of the responses I received yesterday regarding the two geriatric candidates for president this cycle, though the feedback was overwhelmingly on the incumbent rather than on the opponent with similar challenges. The initial note recounted a virtual event the writer attended where a speaker stated without hesitation that Biden’s weakness is what is motivating the Houthis and others to launch attacks on shipping in the Middle East. The implication of this valued reader’s long comment was that our foreign policy failures are really a big deal to be laid directly at Biden’s feet, though I truly am not trying to put words in his mouth. I assume he was responding to the positives I laid out that I believe Scranton Joe had a personal hand in accomplishing.
Iranian allies in the Middle East are emboldened by the region’s on-going war over Israel and the Palestinian territories. It’s hard to find anyone neutral and it’s pretty tough to find anyone who supports Biden’s policies, regardless who or where the person is. Biden is far too sympathetic to Israel while giving them a green light to persecute Palestinian civilians, according to many here and abroad. Sympathies for the Palestinian population run extremely high in this view while Israel is considered far more aggressive than necessary, ignoring that it suffered a horrific attack on 7 October. On the other hand, Biden’s support for Israel is (predictably, in my mind) insufficient for those who aspire to return former president Trump to office. Those of all faiths who see Israel as the Promised Land recognise that Jerusalem feels warranted in conducting any dramatic retaliation against Islamic extremism.
My read is that Houthis, Iranians, Hezbollah, and the other players in the region are perfectly happy to let Israel continue taking the heat for its actions while Biden suffers for his own. This approach frees these other actors from committing to anything that would in fact help resolve the challenge. I’m not sure I see solely as weakness as it clearly is also diversionary actions for the Houthis’s and Iran’s purposes of reminding all of us they are working in the region. But I do not dispute this is a serious issue.
international shipping is concerned about these attacks but, to the best of my knowledge, still operating in the region by raising insurance rates as occurs when conflicts interfere with commerce anywhere (see Taiwan Strait in a conflict, for example). The USS Eisenhower has deployed to the region for months, conducting multiple rescues for crews on attacked vessels amid the missile strikes the Houthis are launching.
Why are we not responding directly against the perpetrators of these attacks? I don’t know. I doubt the crew of the Eisenhower feels they were free to operate in the area surrounding Yemen without interference so they surely ask the same question. I have little doubt that Secretary of Defense Austin, as a seasoned war veteran, has a reason for our current position, under the President’s guidance, but I cannot profess to I know.
I will point out, though, that whenever people (and there are many) become frustrated or even contemptuous of the ‘failed rebalance’ to Asia as far back as the Obama administration, the Houthi attacks are a classic example of what prevents such a transformation in our priorities. The United States alone has global interests—and responsibilities, in the eyes of many here and abroad. China may aspire to them but does not have them now; nor do Iran or Russia. India has enough problems of its own so any world hopes are still decades away. We are the ones who have and carry global burdens. Responding to on-going hostilities in the Red Sea area is not as simple as sending a carrier. Doing so requires adjusting the schedules of support vessels in the battle group, considering logistics components, and addressing other portions of the deployments for our forces around the world. In other words, shifting our commitments has implications and consequences.
That is not, repeat not to say we cannot do it, but the uneducated fantasy too many outside of the armed forces retain is that the services move from overnight from one part of the globe to another is unrealistic. Military operations are a blunt instrument with much power but they take a lot of behind the scenes work, too.
I appreciated the rebuttal from yesterday as it’s a reasonable question as to why we are seemingly impotent in the face of sustained attack by a sub-national group tied to Iran.
The second assessment was about Biden’s debate performance, which I noted last Friday I did not watch as I don’t ever watch presidential debates. After I began this column, I see that Biden can’t be quite as gaga as people thought: according to several reports, the president is seriously reassessing whether to remain in the race because he recognises people doubt this ability to do the job. My friend yesterday concluded Biden could not survive after the debate, a point I absolutely agreed with eighteen hours ago and am more convinced of now.
This summer has a feeling of 1974 when I returned to this country following extended years overseas. Sure, people were still on edge about our withdrawal from Vietnam and the Congress was holding public discussions, including the Watergate hearings, regarding investigations of a number of controversial government policies. People then were, however, primarily awaiting Richard Nixon’s recognition he would have to abdicate his role as president, though we were all unsure when or how it would occur. I thought I had moved back to an asylum as every day was something more bizarre. We know now that Nixon left on 9 August.
Biden’s plight is certainly different as it’s his opponent who has massive legal and ethical problems, including convictions on 24 felony counts. But the sense of unnerving uncertainty penetrates our lives. Perhaps it’s so intense because the last six days, because of the Supreme Court’s decisions on a number of cases, have been the most consequential for this country in my lifetime.
Should Biden withdraw, a replacement candidate fight within the Democratic coalition would ensue. Vice President Kamala Harris’s success is far from assured in the current environment but a decision could not wait too long. One of the curiosities of the modern era is early voting by mail—a process guaranteeing that some ballots are already at the state printing shops.
The former president really doesn’t want Biden to step back. Running against someone your age with massive responsibilities to govern makes that person less effective at campaigning. Additionally, the former president’s applause lines already gear to Hillary and Joe, both of which would require retooling as evidence mounts that Trump himself is finding public speaking considerably more cognitively difficult than in the past.
Each and every bit of this puzzle that is our country’s choice for chief executive—a position now empowered with truly unlimited power to conduct governmental affairs as the individual sees fit—is fraught with unknowns. Any and all of the clichés will truly be worn out by the end of this process. No, we have never been in this position before. No, we don’t have a roadmap. No, there is no easy solution as every decision has massive consequences. No, we cannot straight-line where this takes us.
Actions create consequences.
Thank you for reading this column and please do send me any thoughts as you can tell I read them carefully before cogitating on them for hours. Thank you to the subscribers whose financial support helps me so much. Please feel free to circulate this if you think if of value.
It was a beautiful sunrise as I thought about the two aforementioned responses. At least that was peaceful and a stunning reminder of the beauty of our world.
Be well and be safe. FIN