THE ARAB SPRING’S NAPOLEON CHALLENGE

         At the end of the 18^th century a “European Spring” swept through France, on the heels of the American Revolution.  This movement, in the largest and most influential country on the Continent, promised the end of monarchs and the beginning of the rights of man.  The experiment was short lived and ended in horrible bloodshed as an unbalanced democracy without developed institutions ate its young.

          In the political vacuum that followed, a military genius small in stature with an unbounded ego, united the French people and influenced many others.  For those who had nothing and the fledgling middle class shopkeepers trying to grasp a purchase, his vision of a modern Roman imperialism was enticing.  Equality for all, governed by the rule of law appeared worth the price of a glorious death with a guaranteed pension for the family.  Many were Roman Catholics who feared the Protestant heretics from Britain and Sweden and the Orthodox Russians most of all.

         Napoleon Bonaparte kept Europe in flames for almost 20 years.  His ideology was shared by commoners in all corners and abhorred by the political elites. Napoleon’s propaganda spread throughout Europe in the form of pamphlets.  The information was never true but always inspirational and inflammatory.  At the beginning of important battles all the languages of Europe could be heard among the assembled soldiers fighting for Napoleon.  Geographical borders meant nothing as French victories carved out new principalities that were handed out like candy to Napoleon’s family and favorite generals.

         The Vatican States were conquered and the Pope fled. Napoleon was excommunicated from the Catholic faith as an extremist not worthy of the church’s support.  Britain stayed out of the fray until the end, paying other monarchs from Prussia, Russia, Saxony, and Sweden vast sums of money to fight the evil that sought to end the status quo.  Spies and assassins worked behind the scenes with impunity, blowing things up and killing political leaders.

         This short, incomplete summary of the Napoleonic wars has many parallels to the rise of ISIS in the Middle East.  While there are numerous differences as well, my point is not that history repeats itself.  I simply believe it is a dangerous mistake to treat ISIS as a terrorist organization like the al Qaeda of the past.  The point is also to remember that social and political change took time in the West and will take time in the Mid East.

         ISIS sees itself as a legitimate Islamic State.  It holds territory, runs municipal government, collects tolls, exports oil, passes laws and executes enemies.   It is more like the Taliban on steroids, a phenomena similar to Napoleon that seeks to conquer and rule a large geographical area in disarray.   ISIS is self contained, does not depend on outside funding and raises an army by promising glory, sexual partners and a purpose in life to dissatisfied young men.  Militarily, ISIS is run by former Iraqi military Sunnis, trained by the United States back in the day.

         In my view the United States should follow the British example from the Napoleonic Wars and stay removed from this singularly Islamic conflict as long as possible. Let those countries most affected by ISIS do the heavy lifting. This is a battle for the heart and soul of Islam with multiple agendas and forms of government in play.  Threats to our homeland are minimal.  If we take the ISIS bait and increase our military presence it will prolong the conflict and accomplish little.  With ISIS, patience and backseat containment are the best course.

         During the Napoleonic Wars, our country minded its own business, completed the Louisiana Purchase with the French and began the march West that made us into a great nation.  During the ISIS wars, we should concentrate foreign policy on Russia and the Far East, leaving the Mid East to sort out its own Napoleonic moment.

        

         

THERE IS NOTHING TO LEARN FROM THE PRIMARY CANDIDATES

         In the best of times our political culture does not leave room for intelligent, balanced debate.  As we ramp up for another primary season preceding the presidential election, this is not the best of times. For the next 18 months, candidate communications, particularly in the wide open republican primary, will be all about the sound bite, the sarcastic tweet and the canned stump speech.  The message from each candidate will be repeated over and over in a superficial, cardboard manner.  An informed electorate must look behind and beyond the primary candidates’ comments, to determine what is really in play.

         For example, when the candidates say: “I vaccinate my children, but others should have a choice”, the answer was carefully thought out and has little to do with public health.  Democratic candidates in 2008 made this statement because liberal, wealthy holistic minded donors from Silicon Valley, Palm Springs and university towns do not vaccinate their children.  More recently, republican candidates have done the same because conservative libertarians do not vaccinate their children.  In other words, campaign contributions and garnering votes trump public safety and common sense when you are running for president.

         Foreign policy positions are often complicated and not easy to define with a sound bite.  This does not stop republican candidates from making simplistic authoritative statements like: “We must arm Ukraine to fight Russian aggression.” or “We need boots on the ground to fight Isis”; and “More sanctions against Iran will result in a nuclear treaty.”  Each of these issues has layers of complexity.  Diplomats and specialists, with vast knowledge of the culture, language and history of each region are often unable to agree on a specific policy.

         To highlight one example, among political experts in Western Countries, particularly in Europe, there are many who believe arming Ukraine to fight the Russian proxies would result in a disaster.  This view holds that Ukrainian troops would become “cannon fodder” for superior pro Russian separatists and that prolonged hostilities aid Putin in consolidating power within Russia.  For a candidate to thoroughly grasp a foreign policy issue like the Ukraine takes time. Why bother, when a candidate is seeking votes, not a diplomatic consensus? Moreover, the candidate might find that the research does not comport with the views of the political base needed to win the primary.  Better to leave well enough alone, stick with sound bites and let the Obama administration do the heavy lifting.

         When New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie, recently ventured across the pond to London, he sharply refused to answer questions on foreign policy.  He knew that he was in over his head with the British Press and that superficial answers would not cut it.  While he was ridiculed throughout Europe for his non answers, my guess is that his political base could not care less, as long as his attacks against the President remain strong.  It makes more sense to tell supporters what they want to hear and leave meaningful foreign policy discussions for the final Presidential debates in 2016.

         The situation is similar when primary candidates address domestic issues.  Well articulated positions on tax reform, immigration, education, funding infrastructure and the like are nonexistent during this time of primary shape shifting.  It is more expedient to attack the guys in power for their misguided and/or lack of accomplishments, than to offer a solution that may turn off a prospective voter.

         The key for candidates in primary politics is to not offend potential supporters.  This tricky process involves courting votes to the extreme right if you are a republican or extreme left a democrat.  Not committing to specific policies leaves enough wiggle room to swing back to the center if you are fortunate enough to win the party nomination. Those of us who want to understand the issues facing our country and possible solutions must not count on the primary candidates.  Wait until after the confetti at the party conventions is swept up in late summer, 2016.