Larry Summers

Dear Friends,
The New York Times just reported that Larry Summers has withdrawn himself from consideration to be nominated as the next Federal Reserve Bank Chair.  He must have read my blog post and decided he could not continue.  Now let's hope that President Obama nominates Janet Yellen.
Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Federal Reserve Chair Nominee

Dear Friends,
President Obama will soon be nominating someone to become the new head of the Federal Reserve Bank.  It is widely reported that Larry Summers is on or perhaps even at the top of the short list for potential nominees (here).  I cannot understand why President Obama would even consider Mr. Summers as a candidate.  The editorial board of The New York Times made a very clear, cogent and convincing argument against Mr. Summers being the nominee (here). I find a couple of points raised by the editorial particularly persuasive:
First, Mr. Summers temperament is unsuited to lead the Fed.  He is dismissive, abrasive and lacks consensus building skills.  These traits could certainly lead to institutional dysfunction which we cannot afford.
Second, Mr. Summers has shown an incredible disdain for and aversion to reasonable and necessary financial regulations.  He was critical in the drive to eliminate the regulations put into effect by the Glass-Steagall Act, and he has resisted regulation of derivatives.  But most important even after seeing the carnage brought by a failure to properly regulate the financial industry, he refuses to acknowledge that the policies that he promoted lead directly to the Great Recession. 
Three Democratic Senators on the Banking Committee, Senators Testor (MT), Brown (OH) and Merkley (OR) have all indicated that they would not vote to confirm Mr. Summers. Senator Warren (D. MA) is also reported to be very concerned about Mr. Summers (here). 
There are others who are very well qualified and should be nominated instead of Mr. Summers.  Here is a link to an excellent article making a strong case for nominating Janet Yellen.
Please write President Obama to encourage him to nominate Janet Yellen as the next Fed Chair, not Larry Summers.  You can reach President Obama here.
Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Say No to a Military Strike in Syria

President Obama’s rationale for the need for a military strike against the Assad regime in Syria poses a false choice, lacks logic, contains ludicrous guarantees and has no legal basis.  For the purposes of this discussion, I am willing to concede that the Assad regime used chemical weapons that resulted in over 1,000 deaths of innocent civilians, including children.  The rationale and arguments that President Obama, Secretary Kerry and their supporters are using are destroying their credibility and limiting the options available to the global community to deal with this monumental humanitarian crisis.

President Obama is posing a false choice.  He states that the choice is to do nothing or to use military force to hold Assad accountable for using chemical weapons and to deter him and others from using them in the future.  Many of the members of Congress who have voiced opposition to the President’s call for a military strike have made it clear that they believe something must be done but believe that there are non-military options available.  Every day members of Congress and others are offering non-military actions that could be taken, but the Obama Administration continues to claim that the choice is do nothing or military intervention.  President Obama and Secretary Kerry are both very smart people who are being intellectually dishonest by continuing to pose this false choice and are severely damaging their credibility.

President Obama is known as a thoughtful, disciplined and logical person, but in this case his argument for military intervention in Syria demonstrates flawed logic.  President Obama has said that the timing for a military strike is not critical so we can wait for Congress to have a debate and approve the action.  Using that logic, it would also be clear that we have time to wait for the report of the UN weapons inspectors.  If President Obama is so certain that chemical weapons were used and that the Assad regime is responsible, why not wait for the UN report which at the very least would support the fact that chemical weapons were used?  The UN report might also provide other nations with cover to support action against Assad.

President Obama indicates that the military strike will degrade Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons in the future, will make it clear that there will be severe consequences for using chemical weapons in the future and will also deter other nations from developing and using chemical weapons, but the strike will be very limited and will not be sufficient to impact the balance of power in the ongoing civil war in Syria.  If the military attack is so limited as to have no impact on the balance of power in the civil war, it will be a small slap on the wrist and hence not have any significant impact on Mr. Assad’s future use of chemical weapons or deter others.  If the military attack is significant enough to scare Mr. Assad and others into not using chemical weapons, then it will certainly tip the balance of power in the civil war.  If Mr. Assad sees himself losing the civil war, that existential threat to his regime and to him personally will certainly not force him to discontinue the use of chemical weapons and could force him to use even more brutal tactics to win the war quickly.

The Obama Administration refuses to answer the question of what will happen if we go forward with the military strike and then Mr. Assad uses chemical weapons again.  It is impossible to make a logical case for a military strike if you are unwilling or unable to answer the question of what do you do if it does not have the intended results.  When this question was put to Secretary Kerry, he refused to answer and reverted to canned talking points about a limited strike that would deter the future use of chemical weapons. 

The lack of logic is also evident in the ludicrous guarantees that Secretary Kerry makes.  He has said that he can “guarantee” that there will be no direct military involvement by the United States in the Syrian civil war and that there will be no US boots on the ground.  By constantly using the word “direct”, Mr. Kerry is clearly indicating that the United States will be indirectly involved.  Presumably our current involvement of providing support to the opposition forces is “indirect”.  It is unknowable what the response to a military strike in Syria will be from Mr. Assad and his allies or where that response will lead.  Such a “guarantee” is at best disingenuous and is certainly misleading.

Secretary Kerry has also indicated that he believes that we can guarantee that Syrian chemical weapons will not get into the hands of other bad guys.  One of the real dangers of a collapse of the Assad regime is that the chemical weapon stores will be unprotected, and there can be no assurances that they will not fall into the hands of other bad guys.  Neither can there be any assurance that Mr. Assad will not give chemical weapons to any group that he feels will help him stay in power.  To say that the United States knows with any certainty what will happen after we bomb Syria, is either the height of arrogance or an outright lie.

Secretary Kerry also claims that he can guarantee that the United States is only supporting the moderate opposition forces and not the extremists and that an attack on the Assad regime will strengthen the moderate opposition forces.  There may have been a time in this war that one could differentiate between the good and bad opposition forces, but that time has long since past.  All segments of the opposition forces are intermingled and have committed atrocities.  To say that the United States can vet the opposition forces to know who are the good guys and who are the bad guys and keep our aid in the hands of the good guys only is once again either the height of arrogance or an outright lie.

Secretary Kerry’s claim that the United States is supported in this action by many other nations is a ridiculous claim that further destroys his credibility.  He sounds like President George W. Bush talking about his coalition of the willing.  Canada is not supporting this approach. Great Britain is not supporting this approach. Italy is not supporting this approach.  Germany is silent as is much of the rest of Europe. NATO is not supporting this approach.  Secretary Kerry cites France and Poland.  The Arab League says that something should be done but has not come out in support of any military action.  The United States would be once again essentially acting on its own.

Secretary Kerry has also argued that after the air strikes when Assad will no longer use chemical weapons, the parties will reach a standstill with moderate opposition forces negotiating for a transitional government that will lead to a free and open democracy in Syria.  Secretary Kerry is too smart and understands history (to say nothing of the events of the last few years) to well to actually believe in that scenario.  While the picture he is painting would be wonderful, it has no chance of actually coming true in any time other than perhaps in decades.  When the Obama Administration and its supporters use the same fantasy views of the future world that the Bush Administration did in connection with its nation building, they are destroying their own credibility and making it clear that their proposed course of action cannot be supported by facts and realistic projections.

There is no legal basis for a United States airstrike against Syria.   News reports have quoted UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon as indicating that such a strike would only be authorized under the UN Charter if the United States were acting in self-defense or such an attack were authorized by the Security Council.  Of course neither of those conditions has been satisfied.  President Obama obviously knows this fact as he relies not on the legality but the morality of a response and the fact that the United States and others have acted illegally in the past.

The moral outrage at what is going on in Syria should be increased because of the use of chemical weapons, but it should be on top of the moral outrage that we should be expressing at all of the killing and atrocities.  The fighting in Syria has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people and has displaced millions.  Under President Obama’s rationale, his airstrike will do nothing to prevent or mitigate further killing and atrocities as long as they are not committed with chemical weapons. 

President Obama’s course of action is based on the assumption that there is something that the United States can do to solve the problem.  As Jon Stewart has said, we are a superpower with no super powers.  I admit that all the suggested actions that have been proposed as alternatives to a military airstrike have flaws, just as there are many flaws in the idea of a military airstrike.  The United States should be open to diplomatic and political solutions as alternatives to military intervention.  Arms embargoes, no-fly zones, international criminal court action, naval blockades, pressure on and through Russia, sanctions and other ideas that have been suggested are all flawed, but they are better choices than a military airstrike.

Supporters of the Obama airstrikes are also claiming that if the United States does not intervene militarily, we will be seen as weak and it will encourage Assad and others to use chemical weapons.  The United States and the rest of the world can and should demonstrate strength in non-military ways.  Some supporters of the Obama airstrikes also make the argument that if the Democrats in Congress do not support his plan, then the President will be a lame duck for the rest of his term and not be able to get anything done.  I am appalled that anyone would be willing to bomb another nation and kill innocent civilians so that President Obama might be able to get some of his domestic agenda through Congress.

The arguments that President Obama, Secretary Kerry and others who support Obama’s airstrikes are, in my view, hurting the their own credibility, damaging the standing of the United States in the world and limiting the global community’s options in dealing with a monumental humanitarian crisis. 

Please write President Obama, write your Representative and write your Senators so that we can stop the United States from making a terrible mistake.