Military Intervention in Syria Serves Obama, Not the People

There are two questions to ask when assessing whether the U.S. should intervene in Syria: Is there a legitimate national security interest at risk here? And if so, is U.S. intervention in Syria the best approach to protect our interests?

The answer to the first question is a “maybe.” International conventions such as the Geneva Protocol from 1925 (signed by Syria 1968) prohibit the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The use of Weapons of Mass Destruction (especially by a government against its own population) is reprehensible and threatens not only regional stability, but the well-being of people around the globe.

However, sweeping statements by our own politicians such as drawing “red lines” for foreign policy doctrine might threaten national security even more than the current turmoil in the Middle East. Rather than empower the U.S. to respond to difficult situations, such statements narrow tactical and military options, and have caused credibility problems in the past such as when Reagan stated the U.S. would not withdraw from Lebanon.

President Obama’s “red line” claim has put him in a difficult position: If Congress does not follow his recommendation and deliver upon his previous threats, Obama’s credibility is damaged. As tough of a loss as that may be for the President, it would be a victory for the U.S. One of the great differences between the U.S. and those countries threatening our security is that no single person can decide the fate of the entire nation. Future U.S. Presidents should come to finally understand that ex-ante military doctrines are not theirs to set, and they should consult Congress before declaring how the country will react to particular actions.

SyriaPost

The move of President Obama to involve Congress in deciding whether to intervene in Syria or not was the right thing to do. Presenting this move as a surprise and not involving Congress from the very beginning is the actual scandal and exemplary of the lack of respect for our tripartite system of checks and balances cultivated by this administration.

As for the question of whether U.S. intervention is the best approach to stabilize the situation in the Middle East, the answer is a very likely “no.” Intervening will lead to a litany of unintended consequences, and likely fail to accomplish its stated purpose of sending a statement to Assad and other regimes in the region and around the world that Weapons of Mass Destruction will not be tolerated. At this point, intervention would serve the political interests of the President more than the security interests of the U.S.

It is not about isolationism but about being aware of the unintended consequences of interventionism. Many problems in the Middle East can be at least be partially seen as unintended consequences of former interventions, military aid, or intelligence campaigns. An entire decade of war has not stabilized the region at all but rather brought more instability, political uncertainty, and terror to the Middle East and Northern Africa.

Claims by some that less military intervention abroad means being disconnected to other cultures or indifferent to atrocities overseas are just not correct. The notion of not creating bigger fires in the Middle East has nothing to do with isolationism practiced in the early 20th, century but with a 21st century understanding of the interconnectedness of the world that suggests greater military intervention and greater violence might not lead to peace and stability.

Hawkish Republicans and bellicose Democrats (following the administration) are trying to continue the neoconservative heritage of the past ten years and thus lead us to a second decade of war.

The pro-interventionist alliance of Democrats and Republicans is another illustration how the mainstream parts of both parties try to push for more policing around the world and neglect the people’s opinion on these issues. It is now up to the American public, dovish Democrats, and non-interventionist Republicans to prevent another war. Real liberal Democrats are hopefully starting to understand that the Obama administration practices a style of foreign policy which is diametrically opposed to their fundamental ideas.

It’s about time to finally overcome the neoconservative direction of U.S. foreign policy. Congress and the President have to understand that stability in the Middle East can’t be brought by additional U.S.-led intervention.

Private School Parents Aren’t Bad People, Public Schools Are Too Hard To Improve

I’m not actually going to take issue with the basic premise of If You Send Your Kid to Private School, You Are a Bad Person. Allison Benedikt argues persuasively that if every single parent sent every single child to public school, public schools would improve. And Benedikt is not looking to outlaw private schools. She’s just trying to guilt parents into quitting them.

Benedikt wants every school full of parents with the time and energy needed to improve it. But that’s a pipe dream. What isn’t is a public education system open enough to accountability and change that even working parents can get a good education for their kids from their local public school.

With few exceptions, public schools are better in the wealthier suburbs and rural areas. There, parents with the will and means to get a good education for their kids live close together and by turns force and help local schools to do their jobs. Rich, educated parents get much better results from public schools because doing so requires a ton of work. Bake sales and PTA meetings don’t run themselves. And school boards and administrators don’t do a good job of keeping themselves accountable.

In less wealthy inner cities and rural areas, schools operate poorly, with little assistance or oversight from parents who are struggling just to get by.

Much as we might want to think of them as exceptions, public schools are service providers, and parents are customers. Demanding customers get better service.

But part of the reason being a demanding customer is so demanding itself is that public education is so mired in bureaucracy, opacity and other impediments to competition and reform. It’s nearly impossible to fire a bad teacher. There is absolutely no way to know how public schools spend their budgets. Public education is one of the most top-heavy institutions in the United States.

Innovation in any industry, including education, requires two things. First, there must be flexibility to innovate. Things don’t improve which can’t change. Second, there must be impetus to innovate. Doing things differently is risky. No one will take risks if they don’t fear losing what they’ve gained to competitors who will. What excludes public education from this fact of life?

And how are schools supposed to innovate when states and unions set standards for school days, school years, curricula, teacher pay and more?

What we’ve seen over decades of skyrocketing spending on public education and flatlined educational outcomes is that no amount of money can replace a concerned, active, informed parent. Where parents are involved, schools produce a great education. Where they aren’t, schools fail. This is independent of spending. That’s why Benedikt understandably wants kids who do not have involved parents to benefit alongside the kids who do. It’s a laudable goal and a beautiful vision.

But any solution that requires people to deny their kids the best education possible out of guilt over the kids for whom that’s out of reach is doomed to fail. What could work are a few simple reforms to make getting schools to do their jobs require less time, money and energy in the first place.

Moves like ending teacher tenure, shining light on school budgets, allowing schools to innovate and legalizing charter schools and vouchers to open up competition will give concerned parents a clearer and easier path to improving their schools. They will make it easier for parents to demand, and get, better customer service.

PRISM Might Be the Scandal – But Protectionism Poses Danger Too

Recent news has been dominated by revelations about the NSA and British intelligence agencies spying on citizens, without warrants, who have not been charged with crimes. It’s important for citizens to resist government intrusion into their privacy, as governments tend toward authoritarianism in the absence of pushback from their people.

Yet one aspect of the growing surveillance state that hasn’t been discussed as much is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the EU and the United States. Politicians have been trying to use negotiations around it as leverage for the unrelated political dispute about surveillance. It would be terrible to let elected officials use international political conflicts surrounding the US and UK surveillance state to erode free trade.

The economics on the matter simply could not be more clear: 95% of all US economists agree that tariffs and quotas decrease standards of living. Realizing this, Western nations have reduced tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade significantly. And protectionism, which massively harms Africa and other developing parts of the world, has been mostly off the table between Western Nations. Until now.

With TTIP, the stakes are high. If the agreement manages to reduce the amount of tariffs between the US and the EU it will lead to beneficial outcomes for both economies. Lowering trade barriers are estimated to create up to two million jobs within Europe and the US. This would be especially crucial in the face of the present-day problems of youth unemployment and unfunded liabilities. Successful TTIP negotiations would create the largest free trade area in the world. The economic growth generated from this could be seen as a first step on the long path towards world-wide free trade.

Let’s be clear first that free trade agreements would not be necessary at all if governments were not interfering with trade in the first place. A free trade treaty (such as TTIP) should not be understood as a gift from government. It’s a Band-Aid, which presents a real opportunity for wealth creation for people living in those economies.

Free trade empowers people from different nations to exchange goods on a voluntary basis without government interference. Following from an understanding of the benefits of trade, all people should be able to trade freely under the rule of law. Each party of a trade expects to benefit from a transaction otherwise they would not do it. Interference from government hampers such mutually beneficial transactions.

Sadly, protectionism is still prevalent in the 21st century. It takes the form of direct tariffs or non-tariff barriers such as regulation and arbitrary standardization about, for example, the shape of bananas.

Screen Shot 2013-09-02 at 8.17.48 AM

Realizing free trade and reducing trade barriers is to the benefit of both consumers and producers. A prosperous world in which human beings have the freedom to pursue their own peaceful ends is a desirable goal. To achieve this policy makers ought to proceed with initiatives such as TTIP to the point that free trade will be the norm and not the exception.
Using political disputes over other atrocious acts of government as an excuse to deprive more than 800 million human beings of the possibilities to freely exchange goods and services is grossly negligent and outright harmful.

Government leaders have shown a capacity for learning, albeit slowly, from the mistakes of mercantilism. They’ve opened up their borders for goods, bringing much prosperity to the world. To stop this engine of wealth creation due to political disputes is holding millions of peaceful traders and consumers hostage. Citizens should not be punished for misconduct by governments and intelligence services.