(Secretary of State John Kerry.)

I had to look away from the train wreck in the Middle East yesterday and appreciate the bizarre, subtle and ultimately sort of comforting antics of the North Koreans. The current basketball diplomacy with goofy Dennis Rodman, following immediately on the heels of a stern rejection of a visit by a senior US delegation and the execution by firing squad of a rock band- well, it is strange but expected.

The latest antics of the Kim Dynasty represent the passive-aggressive behavior of a devil we know. I would just as soon see regime change there, but I am reluctant for anyone I know to die doing it. In the meantime, I do trust the brutal self-interest of the Northerners to keep their regime- barely- on the other side of a Red Line.

But as much as I enjoy side-shows, and the Rodman visit is a great one, the affair in the center ring has a certain hypnotic compulsion.

According to my research, the United States has intervened in overseas civil wars eleven times:

You can quibble with precise definitions, but let’s try this list:

Korea (1950’s); Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia and the Dominican Republic (1960’s); Lebanon (1980’s); the Yugoslav Wars/Kosovo, Haiti, Somalia and Iraq (1990’s); and Libya (2011).

How did we do on the scorecard?

Mixed outcomes, naturally. Technically, we are still at war with the Kim franchise, and the people of the North are still effectively enslaved. The South, well, it is an economic miracle. Vietnam? I think we won, but we had to lose first. I like the Dominican Republic as a travel destination, which would generally mark success. Far more nuanced are the results of Lebanon, Somalia and Iraq. I am not booking vacations in any of them.

And Benghazi, of course.

Haiti? Well, maybe we prevented the descent into the abyss and not all the citizens moved to Miami. Call it a draw.

Of course you could point out that Iraq was not having a civil war until we invaded and deposed the elected (hahaha) government. Then of, of course, we refused to obey the Pottery Barn Rule of “You break it, you take it.”

In the Balkans, I think you may argue that we saved the bacon of the ethnic minority Muslim population, though a lot of them were ethnically cleansed before the shooting stopped. I think there may be a lesson in there someplace about “boots on the ground,” which was a topic of discussion in the Senate yesterday.

Poor General Dempsey, Chairman of the fearsome Joint Staff. What a military mission he has been handed! The Pentagon will do the best with what it is directed to do- but I do not recall a mission statement as muddled as what was discussed yesterday.

General Dempsey responded to questions from Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) about the proposed resolution authorizing military action in Syria:

DEMPSEY: “The answer to whether I support additional support for the moderate opposition is yes.”
CORKER: “And this authorization will support those activities in addition to responding to the weapons of mass destruction?”
DEMPSEY: “I don’t know how the resolution will evolve, but I support…”
CORKER: “What you’re seeking. What is it you’re seeking?”
DEMPSEY: “I can’t answer that, what we’re seeking.”

I shook my head in disbelief. I have been a military planner in my life, and that is about as bad a mission statement as I have heard. The Joint Staff Publication on planning told us the first step was to re-state the mission direction back to higher authority, to ensure we were going in the right direction.

If the Chairman of the Joint Staff can’t do it, I pity the poor Lt Cols and Commanders who are going to have to do the OPLANs.

Anyway, not doing something doesn’t appear to be an option, and in this incredible world, it is all about credibility.

As this lurches forward, it is important to remember the President’s National Security Team and how they frame the issues for him.

Tom Donilon was still National Security Advisor when the “Red Line” on chemical weapons use was declared by the President. I don’t know whether that was the result of a determined policy decision, or a simple statement that you would think that the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction on civilians would have to be a Red Line somewhere, wouldn’t you?

(National Security Advisor Susan Rice.)

Tom is gone, thank goodness, but his relief at the NSC is Susan Rice, Africa Specialist, former Ambassador to the United Nations, and a front-runner to succeed Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State until that “what does it matter” moment followed the Benghazi affair. The National Security Advisor is not a confirmable position and that was about the best they could do to reward Ambassador Rice for taking one for the team.

So as we look at this mess, we have to think about how everyone came to where they are, and one of those is a place where the United States did not intervene. A place where Ambassador Rice used to have an abiding interest: Rwanda.

That is one way to figure out why Syria would qualify for direct intervention while other conflicts do not.

At the time of the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, Ambassador Rice reportedly said, “If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November Election? ” Rice subsequently acknowledged the mistakes made at the time and felt that a debt needed repaying.

The mistakes are estimated at a half to a full million Rwandans killed, or 20% of the population.

The inability or failure of the Clinton administration to do anything about the killing naturally has informed the NSC Chief’s views on possible military interventions. She later was quoted that “…if I ever faced such a crisis again, I would come down on the side of dramatic action, going down in flames if that was required.”

So here we go. For the record, I am completely in line with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs on where we are going. I just don’t know the name of the devil who will greet us when we get there.

Copyright 2013 Vic Socotra
www.vicsocotra.com
Twitter: @jayare303

OPINTEL Note: The unannounced Israeli missile test yesterday may have provoked a response by the Russian Federation. ITAR TASS reports that Russia’s Black and Baltic Sea Fleets’ are each contributing a Ropucha-class landing ship to the Russian force in the East Med. The warshps- Novocherkassk and Minsk- will bolster the Russian presence with a total of 375 Marines.

(Project-775 Ropucha-class heavy Landing Ship Novocherkassk).

Where are they going? Duh. Smart money is on Tartus, the Russian naval enclave on Syria’s southwest coast. This is probably just in case things get nasty and an extraction of Russian nationals is in order. That is basically the same function of the USN amphibs present in the region- not “boots on the ground.”

President Putin is actually sounding sort of reasonable. He has called the use of weapons of mass destruction a crime, and stated that Russia “will take a principled position” once it gets “objective, precise data as to who committed these crimes. If it is established that means of mass destruction are used by the rebels, what will the United States do with the rebels?” Putin said. In the meantime, Kremlin sources indicate Russia will continue to supply the Assad regime with arms.

We have arrived at a magical place.

Good God.