[Politics] Posturing or Preparation?

On June 22, 2012 a Turkish F4 Phantom was shot down in airspace that is, by some accounts, international air space and, by others, sovereign Syrian territory. What is for certain is that since those events only six days ago the rhetoric between the two countries has gone from measured and frustrated to overtly confrontational. Relations between Turkey and Syria had been better than in the past, but with the recent upheaval in Syria drawing more and more attention, tensions have risen at an alarming rate.

On June 24th, Turkish officials made it clear that they believed their plane was shot down illegally, and in international airspace.

June 25th saw a reply from Syria regarding Turkish statements. The Assad regime also made it clear that whatever the intentions of the Western states, Syria would not consent to the intervention of any nation that it did not consider sympathetic and an ally to the current government.

Only a day later NATO met in response to Turkish calls for an emergency meeting under NATO's article 4. Though the move was a clear message to Syria that Turkey would not fight alone should they be dragged into conflict, the participants did not call for direct action. Most importantly, they did not meet under article 5, which is the section covering the mutual protection of NATO members.

Today, however, saw an escalation in the tensions, as Ankara began to move troops and equipment to the Syrian border, including anti-aircraft missiles and military convoy trucks. This, in advance of a meeting to come on Saturday aimed at bringing the two sides to the negotiating table. Interestingly, both Iran and Saudi Arabia have been excluded as being to overtly in the corner of the Assad regime and the opposition respectively.

Additionally, Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the UN, has 'hinted' at the possibility of military conflict in the region according to the Wall Street Journal.

So the question becomes: "Is this just posturing, or are we witnessing the early days of the 'next war' in the Middle East?" If Turkey continues to spar with Syria can we expect Iran to respond? Would that provoke Saudi involvement? Will NATO take action to defend one of its members? Would Russia come to the aid of its long time ally in the region? All of these questions will be playing out in the next few days and weeks.

Meanwhile, on the ground in Syria we are seeing massacre after massacre. Civilians in the region are being slaughtered daily whether by government shelling or 'professional criminals' as the Syrian government calls them. Whether or not other states get involved, there is no question that it is the citizens of Syria who will suffer the most as this conflict plays out.

[Politics] Invitation Accepted, Mr. Gottlieb.

I wrote this response to a wonderful article by a professor of mine back in March. It did not get published in the NYT (mostly because I failed miserably at the word limit). But I wanted to post it here in the hopes that you'd all enjoy it.
______________
Response to Article: "Invitation to Dialogue: America's Global Role" - by Stuart Gottlieb
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/opinion/invitation-to-a-dialogue-americas-global-role.html?_r=1
______________
The unspoken assumption of Stuart Gottlieb's "Invitation to a Dialogue: America's Global Role"
(letter, March 27) is that American military activity and America’s “presence” in the global
milieu are interchangeable. On the contrary, American military presence is the least efficient
form of activity presently at our disposal.

Mr. Gottleib is right in saying that there is a serious threat of recidivist isolationism in the wake
of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. With the growing influence of China, instability in Arab
nations, and economic turmoil in the EU, the lure of isolationism is most seductive just when
such a stance could prove most detrimental.

What will determine American security and success, however, is not an aggressive military
strategy that promotes the threat or use of force, but rather an aggressive political, diplomatic,
and above all social strategy. We must recognize that the Westphalian system of international
relations is not the only, nor even the best, way to manage the growing concerns of our new era.

The League of Nations failed because preventing another World War I was a poor strategy to
prevent World War II. Similarly, America cannot succeed in this new era of globalism if we
continue to view American military posture as the primary indicator of America’s “presence” in
the world.

The powers in this era will be determined in the classroom, the mosque, the church, the cafe.
It will be televised, tweeted, status updated, and blogged. We must learn that transnational
movements enacted by sub-state actors cannot be entirely dismantled or even efficiently
combated by the policies of international bodies enacted by military force. We must learn that
our presence need not always be marked by the tread of our soldiers’ boots.

Pedro Dalmau, IV
New York, March 28, 2012

[Personal] I'm back.

Six years and seven months to the day, and I've finally started to write in this blog again. My last post caught the eye of someone who was less than pleased, either with me, or with my message. As a result they decided that it would be a good idea to chop it up and add some rather inflammatory content. They turned it into an incredibly threatening piece of writing about the "evils of America."

Then they sent it to the FBI. To the credit of the bureau, they sent an agent to my apartment in Astoria. We had a lovely conversation, and I invited him to see where I wrote the original post and to read the content of the original piece. He did so, and thanked me for my time. I have not heard from him again, but I've retained his contact information...just in case.

So, now I've decided to start writing again. If you've still got me flagged, Special Agent LaFrance, I hope you enjoy reading along as well. I've got so much more to say now.