Rumors of War

I have read a few articles this year which reflect on the outbreak of World War I a hundred years ago this August and wondering aloud whether the current circumstances have some parallels to that awful year (this link is to one of the more balanced pieces, by Walter Russell Mead in the Huffington Post).  The analogy begins with the reasonable (the Middle East being the "powder keg" that the Balkans were back then), goes to the stretched (the US being like the British Empire of 1914), and then to the ridiculous (where is the Germany of 1914? the Tsarist Russia? revenge-seeking France?)  The US does not have great rivals with powerful alliances; they are not to be found among the likes of China or Russia, or lesser powers like North Korea or Iran.

Still, one has to shudder at the news of the downing of the Malaysian Airlines passenger flight near the border area between Ukraine and Russia--could this be our century's Franz Ferdinand moment?  I don't think so, but it is a very dangerous event.  It is not clear what happened, definitely not clear who is responsible, and I doubt anyone will claim this: it is definitely criminal, whether intentional or accidental.  One would hope that it would make President Putin of Russia think twice before sending any more toys over to pro-Russian separatists who may not know how to manage them properly.   One would also suspect that President Putin would know that there will be footprints visible from the satellites in the sky and would never have authorized such a heinous deed.   Nevertheless, there are going to be some very outraged parties--justifiably so, and apparently including American families--who are going to want answers, and then justice. The repercussions will not end soon, nor cleanly.  I would still expect that if we are in a pre-war state, though, it is more likely a Cold War II (with both China and Russia, maybe?) and not a World War III.

Israel-Hamas:  The nth Intifada
Sorry, but I find this round a bit boring and predictable.  My take is the following:  certain radical elements in the Hamas camp did not like the alliance with the Palestinian Authority to seek a peaceful deal with Israel. They chose to attract attention through a cowardly, heinous deed and kidnapped and killed three young Israeli guys.  Israel's government, headed by a man who pretends to want a deal but does not really (Benyamin Netanyahu), had already denied any possibility of negotiating with a counterparty including Hamas; all this gave him a great excuse to ratchet up tensions, draw the usual Hamas rocket fire (a good test for both sides' weapon and anti-weapon systems), and the usual Gaza incursions.

Is it unfortunate that this new provocation in the Ukraine-Russia spat will supersede the Israel-Hamas one? Probably not for Abu Mazen, the harried Palestinian leader who will try once again to get everyone to the table.  Obviously Hamas can not sit at the table, but they can and will provide a veto to any agreement, which allows the two sides to negotiate--if there is anything to talk about and any will to do so.

Iraq: It's Just a Hard Place
No "between", as the obvious pun--I admit to having used it myself--would suggest.  Iraq is a place where the US has options ranging only from horrendous to unthinkable, while the current one, staying out of it, is leading to despair and feelings of helplessness before what could become a mass slaughterhouse, even worse than in the darkest days of the insurgency there in 2005-2007.

Every day brings new evidence that the regime we left behind, despite rising from reasonably fair Parliamentary elections, is incapable of dealing with the menace that has arisen from the lawless areas in the western part of the country bordering on anarchic Syria.  The group known as ISIS, or ISIL, which has combined sharp military tactics with fanatical Islamist ideology and brutal repression, has gained control of large sections of the country, ones with Sunni majorities that never fully accepted the loss of power to the national Shiite majority after the US invasion of 2003.  In the wake of its wave of conquest have come reliable reports (some from the movement itself) of mass executions and extreme application of its version of Islamist Sharia law.

The Iraqi army has lost control of its borders, of many towns and cities, large and small, the entire northern Kurdish area (which Kurdish militia have pre-emptively reclaimed to prevent ISIS invasion), and it seems the army is demoralized and unable to fight ISIS effectively.  Its defensive front is falling back toward the outskirts of the capital, Baghdad, and the Shiite leaders, political and religious, have mobilized sectarian militias to fill the gaps, stop the onslaught, and protect Shiite shrines in those disputed areas..

It is critical that the disintegration of the Iraqi government forces stop before ISIS reaches the city: a battle for Baghdad would be catastrophic, street warfare with casualties in the hundreds of thousands, as the recognized, walled divisions within the city between Sunni and Shiite areas would disintegrate and provide for a chaotic scramble, a raging mess of all against all with no predictable outcome except bloodshed.  I have no doubt that ISIS does aim to take Baghdad--it pledges allegiance to the al-Qaeda vision of a global caliphate which hearkens back to medieval Baghdad as the center of the Islamic world--though it may wait outside the urban center, foment rebellion within the city, and wait for resistance to crumble. I have to say that ISIS' military tactics, formed in the crucible of the brutal Syrian civil war, seem quite sound.

So, what does the US do?  President Obama is criticized for his inaction, but he really does not have any good aggressive moves to make.  The US forces are completely out of Iraq because former President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki could not agree on the basis for any continuation of US presence. Obama is obliged to follow that result, unless he cuts a new deal to re-enter the country (the last thing he would want to do, and the American people are with him on that, though they would certainly prefer a positive outcome to all this Middle Eastern chaos).

Secretary Kerry correctly presses Iraq to solve its political problems--any solution to which will probably cut out al-Maliki from holding onto his current role.  His party gained the most votes in recent Parliamentary elections, but his support is basically confined to a portion of the Shiite population, no longer acceptable to the (mostly Sunni) Kurds or the Sunnis in the battleground areas.  An emergency unity government of all the religious and geographic groups is a necessity, and al-Maliki is too divisive to be the leader of it. The new Parliament took a step forward recently and named its Speaker (by tradition, a Sunni), so there may yet be a political formula which will keep the Sunni leaders from simply handing over their areas to the Islamist force in their midst.

On the ongoing strife in the Middle East, I recommend this CNN article from last month on the 20th-century origins of the current fighting in Syria and Iraq.

On Predicting Future Events, such as the World Cup

Man, man, your time is sand
Your ways are leaves upon the sea.
--Al Stewart, "Eyes of Nostradamus"

So starts the chorus of one of my all-time favorite songs, a selective poetic recitation of some of the 16th-century French seer's greatest calls (interpreted to include Charles II, Napoleon, Francisco Franco, Hitler, and the Kennedy saga).  Nostradamus himself is a topic for another day (his shotgun approach did hit a few targets out there in the Days of Future Passed), but I will credit Stewart with the insight that it is the detritus, the residual stuff that floats to the top, in mankind's future activities that is much more readable than to predict the details.

As a case in point, we take the 2014 World Cup semifinalists.  A year ago, when the draw was announced, I indicated what four teams would make it to this point. I got three right (Brazil, Argentina, and Germany), and, most importantly, I identified a key first-round game (Spain - Netherlands) which would likely determine the one I got wrong.  So, if I had been inclined to do a parlay on the four finalists, I would have bet the three I got right and probably three or four teams for the other spot (Spain, Netherlands, Chile, and maybe Italy).

So what, you say, those were the top-rated teams.  Actually, they weren't.  They were the three which the brackets had set up as the most probable winners, with a big question mark/branch point in the fourth. There were a lot of individual events along the way which were unpredictable, but the sweep of the event and the teams' merits carried those (and Holland, once it had destroyed Spain's bracket chances in that critical first game) to this conclusion.

Now what?  OK, I also predicted, way back then, Brazil-Argentina in the final with Brazil winning.  I will stick with that prediction, though I have plenty of doubts.  Some of the quanta have not lined up properly.

Brazil-Germany:  Neymar getting injured and Thiago Silva suspended for the next game make this a challenge even greater than the one Colombia presented for Brazil.  I have to say that they rose to the occasion vs. Colombia, with the first half being their best performance yet, and they will need to do it--find the right people to step up--to beat Germany.  Germany is a team without any weaknesses, but I have the feeling the Brazilians will find something in their bag of tricks.

In particular, I look at the habit of the German goalie, Neuer, to come out of the box aggressively as something Brazil may find a way to exploit, even though he has been very successful doing it so far.  It will require a breakaway with a secondary plot element--get him to come out, then pass laterally (and back, if necessary) to break the angle and find an open goal in front.  That's one goal, but they will need two.  The second thing they will need is some kind of scoring from Fred, their center forward (or if not from him, from his replacement)--he has scored once so far, and he was clearly offside on that one.

Argentina- Holland:  I give great credit to the Dutch for maintaining their poise, after that frustrating 120 minutes with Costa Rica, to bury all their penalty kicks, but they will need to come up with something different than the Robben down the right/Van Persie offsides down the middle offense they showed (when it wasn't Sneijder's lethal, but slightly off-target, free kicks).  Otherwise, Argentina will be glad to frustrate them and rely on a little Messi Magic to get through.

My overall bracket predictions were not great because I missed on some of the minutiae, as I described before, and my round-by-round fell by the wayside because I failed to put in my picks for the quarterfinals (I would have had all 4)--system blocks on my computer for "games" didn't help!

Wimbledon:  No system block on tennischannel.com's bracket prediction game.  I did pretty well in the Men's side--had Dmitrov, Nadal going out, Djokovic--but the key switch point which I got wrong was the Wawrinka-Federer match (I had Djokovic-Wawrinka in the final).   I did much worse in the women's side--basically I had a scenario which was totally off-base (the Williams sisters re-emergence), so despite identifying Halep, Bouchard, and Kvitova as strong contenders, I did poorly.

Burst of Emails before FEC Deadline Produces New Record...

....for the number of Email solicitations for political contributions that I have received.

So, I got 152 in the 24-hour period ending at midnight June 30 (EDT).  The peaks were sort of zigzagging:  the hours of 11 a.m. with 16 (when the Supreme Court announced its Hobby Lobby ruling--the timing was known, and a couple of groups saw it coming and were laying for it), 5 p.m. with 14, and 7 p.m. and 2 p.m. with 13.  It seems as though, thankfully, the volume slackened off at a certain point in the evening.

The leading emailers in quantity were the DNC ('democrats.org') with ten, featuring "Meet the President" in Austin (I preferred the invite to meet him in Chicago, which came from OFA, barackobama.com), DCCC (nine, mostly under its own name), and The House Majority PAC and Charlie Crist with six each (three more from 'grassroots fladems').

The best pitches came from Alan Grayson (not suprisingly) and one from "Bold Progressives" (Progressive Change Campaign Committee) in the morning which let me know that "You don't need to donate."

Unfortunately, I agree with them.  A lot of other people donated, and, as I've stated before, I don't really care about their artificial filing deadlines; those are mostly to convince each other how serious their candidates are.

Several were from candidates who are either not running, or in near-walkover races. They are offering to back other candidates, and some named specific candidates they were offering to help, ones who don't have the same level of name recognition (Bruce Braley, in a tough Senate race in Iowa, was one mentioned frequently; another was Gary Peters, in a must-win race in Michigan).  I don't really mind this tactic--it amounts to the equivalent of an endorsement, with a vague promise to share the wealth--but I'd rather give directly to the candidates, if I know I support them.

The aforementioned Supreme Court decision from Hobby Lobby was well-timed to help gin up something different, some passion, in these emails--it is clear that there is a big challenge to make them different, and that a lot of people are complaining about the volume.  Let's face it, though, they are tremendously cost-effective:  sending an email costs nothing (the time it takes a staffer to write it), as the lists are all automatically produced and sent out.  If the name costs something (probably not the case most of the time), then there is incentive to maximize its use.

I got a lot of pitches from people I've never really heard of (except possibly in prior emails to me).  There were definitely some new ones this time around--their attitude must be: send it out, who knows?  I do detect some sophistication, though:  I got none from Mark Begich (though Amy Klobuchar gave him a testimonial) or Mark Pryor in Alaska and in Arkansas, two I've pledged not to support because of their vote to filibuster background checks.   Nor the DSCC, who I've also sworn off because I can't trust whom they will decide to support.

The only one I gave any money in late June, as the frenzy was ramping up, is Brad Schneider, who is in a close House race very close to my home in Illinois.  I've given to Charlie Crist since June 30 (defeating Rick Scott is a priority).  I give pretty often to the DCCC, as I can't force myself to decide which House races, in general, are most strategic to support:  I have to trust them. Here are a few candidates that I am considering giving to, though:  Bruce Braley. Cheri Bustos (running in a 50-50 House race in Illinois). Mary Landrieu (I've largely forgiven her, and hers may end up being The Decider, in a runoff).  Kay Hagan.   Wendy Davis and John Walsh, if they can establish a little better credibility.   Just not around deadline time!

Finally, there is a cause that I recommend--right now, they are only asking for a pledge (they will come back and ask for money if they reach their goal, a very ambitious one of $5 million by July 4).  It is called Mayday.US, and they describe themselves as (I hope I get this right) "the PAC to end all PAC's".  Their goal is to make change to the political campaign financing mess (my word), by raising enough money to make change a powerful political force.  I wish them luck (and I gave them my pledge!)  In particular, I liked the non-partisan appeal made by its founder Lawrence Lessig--it's got to be something other than a Democratic campaign tactic, or it will produce automatic Republican opposition.