27. OBAMA SEEKS TO "CHANGE" AMERICA

FOREIGN POLICY

Supporters of Iraq's Sadr movement hold a picture of al-Sadr as they march in the Karada district of central Baghdad on May 31, 2010.

Iraqis examine the wreckage of vehicles destroyed in a car bombing in Kirkuk – August 2011

The Iraqi vice president Tariq al-Hashemi and his son are sentenced to death in absentia
 (September 9, 2012)

Hashemi fled the country to Turkey when the al-Maliki's Shi'ite government put out an arrest warrant for Hashimi, who as a Sunni vice president was supposed to symbolize the new unity of "democratic" Iraq  ... that thousands of American soldiers died to establish.  The verdict of the court was accompanied the same day by sectarian violence that left over 100 Iraqis dead in 10 cities. THE ONGOING WAR IN AFGHANISTAN In Afghanistan, Obama took a different tack than he had in Iraq.  To the great distress of his Democratic Party supporters, in February (2009) Obama announced that America would not at the present be leaving Afghanistan.  Instead Obama would be deploying an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan in continuation of Bush's recent surge effort against the Taliban.  But the Afghan surge seemed not to have the same effect in Afghanistan that it had in Iraq.  The Taliban insurgency seemed to be able to bounce back here and there as American troops made the effort to try to secure first one area and then another.  The Taliban's ability to retreat into Pakistan where Americans were not allowed to pursue them was a big part of the problem.  As long as they had the Pakistani sanctuary, they could not be seriously removed from the region.  Americans were profoundly handicapped in their efforts to clear Afghanistan of the Taliban insurgency. A worried Afghan President Hamid Karzai began to conduct discussions with the Taliban, and suggested that America do the same.  In Karzai's thinking, America was becoming less reliant as an ally in terms of securing a political future for his regime. Americans were shocked that Karzai would be such an "unstable" ally (it was America, after all, that had put him in power), another indication that America really did not understand how politics worked in that part of the world. Then in December Obama announced the deployment of an additional 30,000 troops in Afghanistan during the next year (2010).  But to deflect a growing anti-war protest movement in America, he also announced that America would begin troop withdrawals from Afghanistan by the summer (July) of 2011.  This too put Karzai on the spot, for the Obama message was a bit ambiguous: where did America really stand in terms of securing the Afghan political future?  The Taliban took note of this and seemed to gain new boldness. Meanwhile tensions with Pakistan began to grow over the way al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters easily found sanctuary (even training camps) inside Pakistan.  Then with WikiLeaks publishing tens of thousands of classified U.S. military documents in July (2010) it also became apparent that the Pakistani Intelligence Service (ISI) was suspected by U.S. agents of actively supporting the Taliban. Oct. 20, 2010: President Obama meets with his national security team on Afghanistan and Pakistan in the Situation Room. At least four die from a Taliban attack on guest house frequented by foreigners in the formerly quiet Kunduz province – August 2, 2011 President Atambayev of Afghanistan's neighbor Kyrgyzstan (took office on December 1, 2011) is demanding the closing of the American Manas air base in his country by 2014.  It was opened in 2001 to support US military operations in Afghanistan.  Obama had the American troops vacate the airbase in June of 2014. A bomb is exploded among Shi'ite worshipers – December 6, 2011 60 people killed (20 more would eventually die) BIN LADEN IS KILLED (MAY 2, 2011) Without any warning or prior approval from Pakistan (which the U.S. was not likely to get anyway) a team of two dozen Navy SEALs was dropped by two Black Hawk helicopters on the bin-Laden compound, located less than a mile away from the Pakistani Military Academy, the compound identified earlier to U.S. authorities by a former Pakistani intelligence officer (for the tidy sum of $25 million).  The Pakistani ISI had quietly put bin-Laden under something like house arrest, supposedly to keep him from troubling further Pakistan's diplomatic waters.  But on the other hand, ISI was not willing to give him up to any U.S. agents looking for him. In the surprise operation, bin-Laden was killed on site, and his body flown out with the SEALs, and rather quickly transferred to a U.S. aircraft carrier and, after the performance of the appropriate Muslim burial rites, was dropped into the Arabian Sea. The Pakistanis were furious, but in the end did nothing.  And thus closed a major 10-year-old chapter in American life.  And ... Obama came away looking very presidential! Aerial view of Osama bin Laden's compound in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad made by the CIA Osama bin Laden's compound at Abbottabad Obama and the national security team await updates on bin Laden President Obama announces the death of Osama bin Laden – 11:00 p.m. that same night THE NATO TROOP DRAW-DOWN IN AFGHANISTAN Obama's announcement of a huge U.S. troop withdrawal in Afghanistan was accompanied by similar announcements coming from America's NATO allies working with the U.S. in Afghanistan: Great Britain, France, Belgium, Canada, Spain, Norway, etc.  The transition time was to be in the 2012-2014 time period, with whatever Western troops remained after that date to be there only for ongoing training purposes with the Afghan army. In May of 2012 Obama flew to Kabul to sign an Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement pledging continuing American support for the Kabul government, although what that meant in specific terms was not entirely clear.  Only time would reveal the real meaning of this new American-Afghan alliance. Not surprisingly, the withdrawal of American and NATO combat troops led to a large increase in Taliban attacks on Afghan troops and government-aligned villages, as well as insurgency attacks on Kabul itself. Nonetheless, the end of 2014 arrived and, with great ceremony, the last of the Western combat troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan, although some 17,000 multinational (mostly NATO) counter-insurgency troops would be sent to Afghanistan beginning in 2015 (as well as "private" contract soldiers, made up largely of veteran U.S. and NATO troops) under the Resolute Support Mission agreement issued by NATO officials and even supported by the United Nations Security Council.  Their purpose was to train and otherwise support the Afghan Army in its effort to combat activities of the Taliban, and other insurgency groups operating from Afghanistan. THE "ARAB SPRING" BREAKS OUT IN TUNISIA (December 2010) In early 2011 (actually getting a start in late 2010 when a young Tunisian set himself on fire in protest against police corruption), street protests swept through the Middle East, country after country, as if on signal Arab youth got the message to hit the streets in revolt.  Actually, the same spirit soon infected other youth around the world (Greece, Italy, England, America, Japan) inspiring them to take up the same cause: to oppose the injustice of the political and economic systems they were living under.  They demanded, often quite violently, justice to reign throughout their lands.  What that meant was not always very clear, except it usually meant the toppling of the current governments or their societies' leading economic and social institutions, and their replacement (somehow) with more "progressive" political and economic regimes. Blame cannot be laid at the feet of Obama, although one of the first acts of his presidency was for him in June 2009 to fly to Cairo (Egypt) and there deliver a speech entitled "A New Beginning," widely covered around the world.  He was intending to mend the "severely damaged" Muslim-American relations caused by the previous Bush, Jr. presidency.  He indicated that not only would he take a quite different stand with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian issue than had been the American case previously, but that he was going to work to improve relations with the Iranians.  He talked about seeking a new partnership with the Muslim world, especially to bring greater democracy, personal freedom, and economic development to that part of the world. Certainly it sounded as if America would therefore be willing to take a stand in support of those seeking a new realm of Western-style "justice" in the Middle East. Actually, this speech to the people of the Middle East by-passed a number of allied governments in the region which had long been working closely with America in trying to keep Arab tempers from flaring into crisis mode, especially the Egyptian government which had been strong supporters of at least something of a working relationship with Israel.  Also the West needed no more oil or energy crises resulting from political disruptions.  Indeed, the West depended on very strong (some would even say authoritarian or dictatorial) allied Arab regimes to keep matters under control.  This was true in a number of cases, especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt, with which America had been working closely to keep the Middle East settled down. But now it seemed that Obama was sending a message to the Arab world that America's position was about to change.  Indeed it would, but with much wavering along the way (much like America's years under Carter).  Thus the Arab world soon found itself in confusion as to the exact nature of America's Middle East policy. The Arab Spring starting in Tunisia spreads abroad quickly Unemployment (especially dangerous when occurring among well-educated and thus highly-expectant youth), high inflation rates, the hoarding of the society's wealth by a small number of families, and widespread government corruption, finally brought young Tunisian protesters out in huge numbers in January of 2011. The fact that these protests were well-covered by the media and immediately visible to the youth of the Arab world with their full access to that media via their computers and cell phones, made these protests develop an intense energy not only in Tunisia but also across the Arab world in general, where political perceptions of the Arab youth were very similar in nature. By the middle of January, the Tunisian Government of Zine ben Ali had collapsed, with ben Ali fleeing the country to avoid arrest.  By the end of that month street protests were hitting hard in Algeria, Egypt, and Yemen (among others) and in February protests spread further across the Arab world, most notably to Libya and Syria. In Tunisia itself the protests continued on and off as coalition governments were formed and then dissolved in the weeks and months ahead.  Elections were finally held in October for representatives to a new Constituent Assembly pledged to writing a new constitution for Tunisia, the new constitution finally presented for a vote in January of 2014.  In parliamentary elections held that October, most notably the Islamist political groupings that had grown during the period of protest received a major setback, when the secular Nidaa Tounes party took the lead instead.  The Tunisians clearly indicated that they did not want their country to turn itself into some kind of Iran-like Islamic Republic. Obama's earlier "New Beginning" Speech (June 4, 2009) Obama's Cairo speech to the Muslim world inviting the Muslims to seek  a "new beginning"  ... citing his own Indonesian experience and personal family background in Islam and noting  the distinction between peaceful Muslims and violent extremists, declaring that "this cycle of suspicion and discord must end"   But that "New Beginning" seems to come from the Arabs' own initiative: The "Arab Spring" of 2011 Zine El Abidine Ben Ali (2008) President of Tunisia (1987-2011) "Out with Ben Ali" (14 January 2011) Protesting unemployment high food prices, corruption Tunisian Protesters The Tunisian National Army restored order in absence of police services. The picture shows a civilian who was stopped because of a weapon in his car (15 January 2011) THE "ARAB SPRING" VIOLENCE SPREADS QUICKLY TO EGYPT (JANUARY 201) Before the end of January of 2011, the "Arab Spring" had come to Egypt as well, when thousands of youth gathered at Tahrir Square to protest the long-standing (almost 30 years) government of Hosni Mubarak, and the likelihood that his son Gamal was going to take over his father's position as the aged Hosni's health worsened.  Also, Egyptians were tired of living under the Emergency Law, which extended to the government unlimited police powers, enacted as far back as 1967 but in particular since 1981 when President Sadat was assassinated by Islamic jihadists.  Since that time the Emergency Law had been justified as a means of keeping a tight grip on the militant Islamic Brotherhood. Mubarak responded to the protesters by shutting down the internet (understanding how the new generation of youth got themselves together for action), changed personnel in his cabinet, and appointed an Egyptian Vice President.  But this did not disarm the protesters, the numbers of which continued to grow rapidly ... and then became violent when Mubarak moved the military into Cairo to restore order.  In mid-February the Egyptian military command finally took full control of the Egyptian government (it had been the actual basis of Egyptian national power seemingly forever), arrested Mubarak, and promised to undertake various Constitutional reforms and hold elections that fall. But the protesters were not inclined to vacate Tahrir Square, which, through the spring, the summer and into the fall, became the scene of increasing violence as clashes developed between those for and against the military government, that is, basically secular versus Islamist Egyptians.  At the same time the atmosphere of violence spread through the whole city, as Muslims now attacked Christian churches (Coptic Christians made up about 10 percent of the country's population).  By the end of November, the violence reached horrible proportions, just as the process of holding elections for the new People's Assembly was put in place.  Then the following May (2012), the first round of the elections were held for the presidency under the new Constitution. And in June, with legal questions of all varieties being fought out in the Egyptian courts, the final round in the presidential elections was held, with the Muslim Brotherhood's candidate Mohamed Morsi winning the election with 51.7 percent of the vote, and the secular candidate Ahmed Shafik winning 48.3 percent. It was a very close race, representative of the secular-Islamic cultural divide of Egyptian society itself.  There were, of course, claims and counter-claims as to the fairness of the elections themselves. Obama was nonetheless quick to offer his congratulations to Morsi, claiming that these elections constituted a milestone in the country's transition to democracy. Maybe.  But it would be "democracy" Egyptian (or Muslim) style. Obama also announced that he was looking forward to working with Morsi on the basis of mutual respect and shared interests.  But there was little likelihood that America was going to have many shared interests with Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that stood solidly behind the bringing down of the Twin Towers in New York City in 2001.  Was Obama serious, or were these just nice words of diplomacy? Shafik meanwhile understood clearly what his electoral loss to Morsi meant for him personally, and immediately left Egypt for the United Arab Emirates.  Soon thereafter Morsi issued an arrest warrant for Shafik, on charges of "corruption."  So much for Egyptian democracy. In any case the protests in Tahrir Square continued, for the youth were looking for secular reform, not life under fundamentalist Islam.  At the same time, work on a revised constitution took a sharp political turn when secularists walked out rather than see the country come under a fundamentalist Islamic constitution.  The situation worsened when that November Morsi issued a Declaration authorizing himself to take whatever powers necessary "to protect the revolution."  The resulting reaction between protesters and police turned extremely violent. By the next spring (2013), Egyptian youth had drawn up a petition with 22 million signatures calling for a new round of presidential elections.  Then on the day marking the anniversary of Morsi's inauguration (June 30th) not just Tahrir Square but street after street of Cairo was filled with angry protesters calling for Morsi to step down.  After a warning to Morsi by the Egyptian military to do just that – which, not surprisingly, Morsi refused to do – the Egyptian military under General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi declared martial law and removed Morsi from power, putting Adly Mansour in place as Egypt's interim president.  The next year (2014), in a new round of elections (boycotted by the Muslim Brotherhood), Sisi would himself be elected by 96 percent of Egypt's actual voters as their new president. Obama was very upset at the June 2013 setback to Egyptian "democracy" (although softened a bit in his ire by the widespread demonstration of Morsi's unpopularity in Egypt), and made the decision simply to cease further sales of strategic materials (such as the F-16 fighter jet) to the Egyptian military, as a demonstration of America's (or just Obama's) resentment against the fall of Egyptian "democracy" with the military takeover of Egypt. What Obama seemingly failed to realize was that there were really only two serious options in the governing of Egypt, as there were only two social groupings well-enough organized to take political control of Egypt.  And one of those was not some secular political party, such as the kind that used to give some degree of "centrist" order to American politics1 (namely, once upon a time, the Democratic and Republican Parties).  In Egypt there existed only the well-organized Muslim Brotherhood on the one hand and the rather Secular Egyptian military on the other, neither of which were ever likely to take on the "democratic" character that Obama presumably dreamed of. Sadly, Obama's decision to cut back American support of the Egyptian military simply sent Egypt off in new directions in the quest for strategic allies, principally to France and Russia.  Consequently, America would lose significant positioning in the Middle East because of this move against Sisi and the Egyptian military. 1Actually, thanks to Obama's policy of deep, deep social-moral "change," America itself would divide into two very hostile groups, those supporting traditional American culture, and those wanting it overthrown in every way possible.  Thus the "center" of American politics would simply disappear during those eight years of the Obama presidency ... and certainly not reappear as America entered either the Trump or the Biden eras.      American politics itself would take on a "Third World" character – as a mob assault on Capitol Hill on the day of certifying national election results ... or as Congressional attempts to convict a president of some crime in order to throw him out of office (even have him carried off in arrest) have become part of the political game played in Washington ... not quite yet successful in operation, but certainly gladly attempted as a now-acceptable response to electoral dynamics.  American politics and Egyptian politics are thus taking on similar qualities. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in 2009 A picture of an Egyptian protester holding the Egyptian flag – February 1, 2011 Demonstrators in Cairo's Tahrir Square on 8 February 2011 Celebrations in Tahrir Square after Omar Soliman's statement that concerns Mubarak's resignation. February 11, 2011 – 10:15 PM The "Second Revolution of Anger" – people protesting in Tahrir Square on 27 May 2011, demanding food, jobs, and punishment of the former government officials Another round of protests at Tahrir Square beginning the evening of 28 June, 2011 The protests continue the next day – June 29 2011 Protesters are seen in front of smoke burning from a destroyed police booth – June 29 2011 Some demonstrators that gathered outside the court demanded the death penalty for the ousted president A caged Mubarak on trial in Egypt – August 6, 2011 Human rights standards may not be met in this trial, but the more essential purpose is to prove there's no going back. Finally, Obama gets the good news that Egypt has scheduled elections for Egyptian President (May-June 2012).  Hooray!  Egypt can now join the ranks of the world’s "democracies." The New Egyptian President, Mohamed Morsi, He was elected with 51.73 % of the vote – on the basis of Muslim Brotherhood support, and took office at the end of June 2012. His opponent Ahmed Shafik Shafiq flees the country … and chaos mounts in Egypt as Islamists battle Secularists and Christian Copts. By June of 2013 tens of millions of Egyptians had taken to the streets to protest the policies of Morsi ... and the chaos that was tearing Egypt apart. The military put out a warning that if the contending political parties did not come to some kind of agreement within 48 hours, the military would be forced to intervene to restore order in Egypt. Ultimately the military, under Egypt’s Defense Minister General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi took over … and arrested Morsi. The Muslim Brotherhood staged protests around the country … but the pro-Sisi supporters did the same.  Little by little the military gained the upper hand … and the Muslim Brotherhood was forced to back down at the same rate.  Something resembling peace and order finally descended on Egypt. The following year (2014) Egypt held another round of Presidential elections … which the Muslim Brotherhood boycotted … helping deliver a 96% win to Sisi for a four-year presidential term (until new elections scheduled for 2018) THE "ARAB SPRING" THEN SPREADS NEXT DOOR TO LIBYA When the spirit of the Arab Spring hit Libya in February of 2011, it tended to take the form of regional and tribal hostilities rather than the kinds of urban protests of disenchanted youth characteristic of the Tunisian and Egyptian (and simultaneously the Syrian) Arab Spring uprisings.  There were elements of that of course.  The largely oil-based Libyan economy had seen major rises and falls, in particular a nasty decline in the 1980s following the spectacular rise of oil prices in the 1970s – which had the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi back and forth in his political policies in his effort to stay on top of things. Then by the beginning of the 2000s, Gaddafi was ready to attempt friendly relations with the West, especially the Europeans.  By that time Libya had seen fit to admit a kind of general complicity to the Lockerbie bombing and offered up to $2.7 billion to the families (and their lawyers!) in compensation, largely to get the country out from under both a U.N.-ordered sanction and a Western boycott. Gaddafi had come to new agreements with the West, ceasing further nuclear development, and helping to slow the illegal immigration into Italy from Africa.  By 2006, Libya was taken off the American list of terrorist-supporting states. But even then, Gaddafi could not resist the occasional swipe at the West for its "imperialism" before such audiences as the United Nations General Assembly in 2010.  Thus he was still held in deep suspicion on the part of Americans and Europeans. Thus when the Arab Spring hit Libya in mid-February (unemployment was running at 30 percent at the time), and Gaddafi took his usual tough response to Libyan protesters, Obama and his NATO allies decided to get tough on him, for his "violation of Libyan civil rights." Actually, what was happening was a regional war in which anti-Gaddafi protesters, based primarily in the Eastern city of Benghazi and led by a group which formed immediately under the name National Transitional Council (NTC), found themselves up against equally pro-Gaddafi Tripoli-based supporters, also in the streets, but protesting against the Benghazi NTC!  Basically, Libya's Arab Spring had become a tribal war of the Eastern tribes against the Western tribes, although some variance in this tribal pattern made this not quite a completely East-versus-West phenomenon. But oddest of all was how Obama and his NATO allies sided so completely with the NTC, not just diplomatically but ultimately militarily as well.  At first it looked as if Gaddafi was going to bring the Libyan Arab Spring to a quick close as his troops advanced quickly on Benghazi.  But America, Britain and France (supported by Russia and China) got the United Nations Security Council to pass unanimously a resolution which called for military sanctions against the Gaddafi government, and the immediate presentation of criminal charges against Gaddafi in the International Criminal Court (ICC) as well.  The Security Council sanctioned a no-fly zone over Libya, to prevent Gaddafi from offering air support to his ground troops.  Meanwhile France was illegally supporting the NTC group by air-dropping weapons to anti-Gaddafi troops, at the same time not only "enforcing" the no-fly zone but actually bombing pro-Gaddafi positions, a NATO airstrike at Tripoli killing members of Gaddafi's family in the process. This strange intervention on the part of NATO (most all NATO members were involved in one way or another) under U.N. sponsorship seemed to serve the protection of civil rights most unusually in its one-sided involvement in what was actually a Libyan civil war.  Even Amnesty International pointed out that anti-Gaddafi forces were also violators of civil rights, and that much of the claim of Gaddafi's gross violation of those same rights appeared to be mere propaganda put out by the NTC in its effort to undercut Gaddafi. But somehow Obama and the West felt that they had some great "democratic" moral crusade to promote, and, little by little through NATO air cover, were able to help the NTC reverse the fortunes of war and push the pro-Gaddafi forces into retreat.  Finally, the Arab Spring came to its end on October 20th when NATO bombers destroyed a convoy trying to help Gaddafi escape to the desert, and Gaddafi and numerous supporters were thus seized by rebel forces and executed on the spot. Supposedly now (supposedly to Obama and the European leaders anyway) Libya had been brought to a new beginning, a path to freedom and democracy.  But that was hardly likely to happen. Benghazi Tragically, and rather ironically, Benghazi, the city that was the center of the anti-Gaddafi forces, the same forces that America and its NATO partners helped to depose Gaddafi, would become the source of a major American catastrophe less than a year later.  On September 11th 2012, amidst a Muslim sectarian war still raging across the country, Muslim militants of the group Ansar al-Shari'a attacked and torched the American consulate and the nearby CIA annex in Benghazi, in the process killing the American Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans. This caught the Obama Administration off guard, despite the fact that requests for additional security in Benghazi had been previously sent to Washington.  At first the State Department announced that this attack had been a spontaneous response to a particular video offensive to Islam.  But in short order the careful preparations that went into the attack were revealed, and the "spontaneous" characterization of the event had to be dismissed.  At this point (with presidential elections only weeks away) the matter of responsibility became a Republican-Democrat campaign issue. Thus an investigation into the whole affair was put into place. Consequently, as a result of its report, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was criticized for the poor handling of the crisis, and that December a number of department of state officials were suspended or pressured to resign.  Also Obama announced that he would soon (February 2013) be replacing Clinton with Senator John Kerry as his new secretary of state. In 2014 Libya was plunged into yet another round of civil war when the Libyan Army moved against various militant Islamist groups (including principally Ansar al-Shari'a), driving them from Benghazi, but thereby sending most of the militants off to Iraq and Syria to join the Islamic State (ISIS) militants seeking to overthrow the governments of those two countries. In retrospect, one has to ask the question as to why NATO members were so eager to get so involved in Libya's Arab Spring.  Surely they did not expect democracy to sweep Libya as a result of the collapse of the Gaddafi government. Or did they?  Were they really that politically naïve? Tragically, Libya has been under only the weakest of national governments since Gaddafi's fall, and communitarian strife (i.e., civil war) continues to deeply trouble the country to this very day. The matter of social order One also wonders, had they been around in the 1860s, what the Liberals of the United Nations and NATO would have done about President Abraham Lincoln's "dictatorial" behavior during the American Civil War.  At what point does a government have the right to protect itself against rebellion, thus "violating the civil rights" of the rebels?  This was exactly what the American president Lincoln did in sending his federal army into the South in order to force it back into the American Union – minus its slaves … which was why the rebellion of Southerners intent on maintaining the horrible institution of slavery occurred in the first place.  What Lincoln did is widely agreed on today as a very good thing.  But it involved a political dynamic that Liberals instinctively (or just religiously) oppose strongly (as was the case of Kennedy and Johnson in Vietnam, Bush, Jr., in Iraq, and Obama in Egypt and Libya … and soon Syria as well). When will Liberals ever allow themselves to understand the grim requirements of social power necessary to maintain social order – power maintenance hopefully conducted by the common members of society themselves so that a society does not have to rely on a repressive government operating above the people (usually in the form of a dictator backed up by a very strong military or police organization or both) to maintain that order? The maintenance of a social order such that allows human life to thrive never happens "naturally," as Liberals believe as a matter of religious faith, but is the result of strong social training – a process starting always at the all-important level of a strong family – a training that produces a social self-discipline among the people themselves.  Such social self-discipline is what then qualifies a society as a democracy – the ability of the people to govern and direct their own behavior to healthy social purposes. Boomer and Gen-Xer flight from such self-enforced social responsibility (as in "do your own thing") is the least likely of paths to produce either social cohesion and stability or true democracy.  This is clearly demonstrated in the rapid growth since the mid-1960s of the Washington political establishment, called on to fill the social void created by the inability of self-focused citizens to work together to direct or govern the broader life of their own society. Muammar al-Gaddafi at the 12th AU summit, February 2, 2009, in Addis Ababa President of Libya (1969 - 2011) (Green) Cities controlled by pro-Gaddafi forces (as of July 1, 2011); (Brown) Cities controlled by anti-Gaddafi forces (supported by coalition forces) Wikipedia – "2011 Libyan civil war" The International Criminal Court has accused Gaddafi of crimes against humanity and of ordering attacks on civilians Forces loyal to Gaddafi ... located mostly in the western portions of the country Forces opposing Gaddafi at Brega (the eastern portion of the country) A NATO airstrike directed at the pro-Gaddafi forces At news that Gaddafi was losing his grip on power, celebrations erupted in cities across Libya Libyan citizens hold a Kingdom of Libya flag as they attend the Arab League meeting in its headquarters in Cairo Libya's National Transitional Council is led by Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, Gaddafi's former justice minister (Mahmoud Jibril, Chairman of the NTC's Executive Board, is another key NTC leader) An image captured by cellphone showing a battered Qaddafi just before his on-the-spot execution October 20, 2011 A year later (September 11, 2012) ... the Benghazi killing of American officials U.S.Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi - 2011   One of those who assaulted the unprotected American compound in Benghazi U.S.Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at Congressional hearings held in 2015 as to what went wrong in Benghazi THE "ARAB SPRING" ALSO SPREADS TO SYRIA This question of the rights of those most responsible for the unity and harmony of society to protect and maintain that very unity and harmony would be a legitimate question that would arise as well in the way the Arab Spring impacted multi-ethnic Syria, another Arab society held together only through the tight grip of its central authority. Like Iraq, Syria was a country (never a nation) carved out of the old Ottoman Empire by the "victors" of World War One, France creating Syria as one of its League of Nations mandates (as well as Lebanon) and Britain doing the same with Iraq, Trans-Jordan and Palestine – ultimately for their own French and British imperial purposes.  However, twenty-five years later, after World War Two, France sent Syria off on its own journey, always a turbulent experiment in multi-cultural politics. Military coups were constant, one military regime overthrowing yet another.  The cycle had hopefully come to an end in 1961 when Ba'athist military officers (including Hafez al-Assad) took control of Syria, in order to pull it out of the Arab Union with Nasser's Egypt that Syria had joined three years earlier.  But political turmoil would continue to rock the country with yet more military coups changing the leadership within the Ba'athist Party itself.  Finally in 1970, Assad took full control of the Ba'athist Party and thus the country and the coups came to a halt. Slowly but steadily Assad built up his personal power over Syria (basically outlawing all political activity other than what Assad himself allowed), with Arab Sunni, Shiite, Alawi, Druze, Sufi, Salafi Muslims, Kurdish Muslims, Arab Orthodox and Catholic Christians, and tribal groups of all varieties making up the wide and often contentious diversity of the Syrian population.  During this time, Syria was also caught up in wars next door with its neighbor Israel, as well as with Muslim militants at home (principally the Muslim Brotherhood).  Thus it was that in the early 1980s an Islamist uprising against the rather secular Assad regime had to be put down harshly by the Assad military. However, also during this time Assad attempted to preserve good working relations with America and the West, even joining the West in the 1991 Gulf War against Saddam Hussein. In June of 2000 Hafez al-Assad died, and his son Bashar was elected the next month as Syria's new President (he ran virtually unopposed). There was hope that with the younger Assad in power, Syria might experience a "Damascus Spring."  But troubles grew quickly over demands for deep change by reformers, mounting demands finally (the next year) countered by Assad's military.  Additionally, Syria's peace continued to be shattered by problems with jihadist militants, whose camp, in 2003, Israel felt compelled to attack with its fighter jets.  Then in 2004, serious fighting erupted between Syrian Kurds and Arabs.  And in 2007 Israeli jets bombed a nuclear reactor under construction in Syria. But the crisis that hit Syria with the 2011 Arab Spring would turn out to be the worst event ever experienced by Assad's Syria.  At this time Syria was suffering from a long drought, and massive farm failures.  Refugees had poured into Syria to escape the Iraq war next door, straining Syria's thinning social resources and adding to the growing unemployment rate and the slowness of the Syrian economy to grow (in comparison to other Arab states). Spurred on by the revolts in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, in mid-March Syrian protesters filled Damascus's streets demanding various political and economic reforms.  It was confusing, as some wanted simply secular reforms, but many others demanded the move of the Assad regime to a more conventional Sunni Muslim character (Assad himself was Alawi, not Sunni).  In response, Assad ordered his military to disperse the protesters and arrest the leaders.  But over the next days, and then weeks, the protest marches continued to build.  Eventually some of the protesters took up the call for Assad himself to step down from power. But this commotion now involved all sorts of different groups coming out to protest, not only to protest against the Assad regime, but also to march in support of Assad.  Thus Syrian groups increasingly found themselves in violent opposition to each other.  In short order, Syria was falling into a full-blown civil war. Then at this point the international community (Russia, America, Iran, Turkey and others) decided to intervene in the chaos, to bring "justice" to Syria.  Obama, for instance, in August of 2011 denounced Assad for his blocking of democracy in Syria, and declared that it was time for Assad to step down.  However, such international moral assistance was absolutely guaranteed to make the Syrian chaos worse, much worse (how was it that Obama missed this critical understanding of things?). Russia and Iran, however, took the path of support of Assad in his efforts to crush the rebellion.  At the same time, America, Britain, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia (even Israel) decided to support one or another rebel group – on the part of the Americans, principally a group that called itself the Syrian National Coalition (but actually hardly a national coalition!). Thus international reactions varied depending on how a country viewed the matter of Assad trying to break the spirit of the rebellion: was his strong use of various weapons (chemical weapons, some major missiles and bombs) warranted or not? In August of 2012, Obama declared that Assad's actions violated all standards of humane treatment of his people.  He threatened Assad, warning him that America would react strongly (???) if he crossed a "red line" in continuing to use such means of repression, especially the chemical weapons.  But this did not slow up Assad, who continued their use, and forced Obama into an embarrassing retreat when he failed to deliver on whatever punishment he had in mind to back up his threat.  At first Russia's President Putin agreed to step in to try to mediate between Assad and Obama (supposedly to get Assad to give up tons of his chemical weapons), but ended up instead moving closer in support of Assad (who managed to keep some of his chemical weapons anyway).  It was at this point that America (in concert with Saudi Arabia) began secretly to ship arms, even tanks, to Assad's opponents, thus heating up the civil war.  Saudi Arabia of course did so in the hopes of strengthening the position of the Sunni Muslims hoping for a new Sunni Muslim Fundamentalist government in Syria.  Is this also what Obama wanted by undercutting the Secular government of Assad and his Ba'athists?  Had America learned nothing from the Iraq disaster? Current president of Syrian, Bashar al-Assad, second son of Hafez al-Assad Protest in Duma, a city near Damascus, Syria (5 April 2011) Protesters in Duma (8 April 2011) A pro-Assad student rally at Tishreen University, Latakia, Syria Thousands continue to take to the streets across Syria, despite the bloody crackdown on protests.  Activists say that thousands of civilians have been killed by security forces. EVEN EUROPE AND AMERICA SOON SUCCUMB TO THE OUTHFUL THRILL OF TAKING TO THE STREETS TO PROTEST AGAINST "SOCIAL INJUSTICE" In the summer of 2011 Greek youth take to the streets to protest the economic austerity measures undertaken by the Greek Parliament in order to bring the nation's horrible finances back under control. Greek prime minister George Papandreou addresses lawmakers on June 29, 2011 after voting in parliament passed an austerity package amid angry street protests Demonstrators carrying banners march towards the Greek parliament in Athens during mass protests on June 29, the second day of a 48-hour general strike against proposed austerity measures Riot police enter Syntagma square during the 48-hour general strike Protests quickly turn very violent Protesters attack a policeman during protests around Syntagma square in Athens on June 29 A policeman in trouble A motorcycle policeman tries to remove his helmet as he burns after protesters throw a petrol bomb in Athens This spirit is quickly picked up the youth of Britain's huge ethnic "minority" population In Pictures: London's burning, day 3 – August 9, 2011 Hackney, East London Peckham, South London Croydon, South London Sporadic violence continued for a third day in parts of London and spread to other cities Even the "Occupy Wall Street" movement in America seems somehow connected to this 2011 spirit of protest sweeping the world And Italian youth … not wanting to be left out of the fun … gather in Rome in October (2011) to protest against economic injustice.  As in Athens and London, things turn violent. THE SITUATION IN SYRIA WORSENS The founding of the Islamic Caliphate or ISIS Meanwhile, individual Sunni Muslims from around the world came to chaotic Syria to support a new Islamic Caliphate (also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS) that, because of all this social chaos, had succeeded in establishing itself in the heavily Sunni border region of Eastern Syria and Northwestern Iraq. This founding and rapid growth of ISIS under Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (chosen by a special Shura council as Caliph in 2014) was finally proving to be a matter of great concern to Obama.  The Caliphate was attracting the following of young Sunni Muslims from around the world, with its graphically displayed (via the internet) beheadings of "infidels," the blowing up of Shi'ite mosques, and even the destruction (August 2015) of the formerly well-preserved 2000-year old Roman town of Palmyra. The world was shocked by such behavior.  But the Muslim militants were greatly pleased to bring the infidel world to such shock, and planned more of exactly such demonstrations of Islamic piety. The mounting Syrian refugee problem At the same time, some ten million Syrians, approximately half of the Syrian population, found themselves uprooted by the violent civil war, and by the behavior of the ISIS fanatics who executed indiscriminately Arabs, Kurds, Turks – even European journalists (70 or more) trying to cover the Syrian story. As of early 2018, some 5½ million Syrians had left the country and taken up residence in dismal refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq.  Others made their way towards Europe – Greece, Italy, France, Germany being their destination (Germany alone took in well over a million refugees, including some also from Iraq and Afghanistan). The Syrian quest for "democracy" and "civil rights" had become a humanitarian nightmare of monumental proportions.  And America found itself unable to offer any counsel or support that could help restore peace to Syria.  Meanwhile, both Russia and Iran now found themselves well-placed strategically in the pivotal Middle East country of Syria as major Assad allies.  America was a big loser in this round of global competition. Obama warning Syria not to cross a "Red Line" in using illegal (chemical/biological) weapons (August 20, 2012) Obama took a lot of flack for his "Red Line" threat! A year later (September 10, 2013) Obama goes before the nation with a special televised address concerning the situation in Syria ... and America's need to step into that situation to straighten things out. The Islamic Caliphate or State They claimed that out of the chaos of Syria (and a highly disenchanted Sunni Iraq in the country’s northwest) they were going to build a new social order founded on the strictest rules of the Islamic faith.  They would "cleanse" the society of anyone not submitting to this new regime of Shari’a (Muslim law).  The beheading of men and stoning of women became the hallmark of the new regime, graphically presented in video streaming … making their point … and attracting a huge number of disenchanted Muslim youth (from even America and Europe ... as well as the Middle East and Africa) who wanted to be part of such a major event as the restoration of the Caliphate. By mid 2015 ISIS had spread its control along communication lines connecting vital parts of northern Iraq and Eastern Syria … and were trying to reach into Kurdish territory in the Iraqi northeast. Roman ruins at Palmyra leveled by ISIS The world was shocked when ISIS displayed pictures of the 1900-year-old Roman Temple of Bel  in Syria that they had just systematically destroyed. (August 2015) The Temple of Bel (or Baal) before / and after ISIS had done its work ISIS beheadings were sent out as internet videos to frighten enemies … and woo budding jihadists into joining the movement (March 2015) (December 2016) An Iraqi woman stoned to death  in Mosul City … for having refused to marry an ISIS jihadist (Oct 2016) ISIS children executing Kurdish prisoners (the second from the right is an 11-year-old English boy) At the same time Iraqi forces (heavily Shi’ite) strike back where they can … in an attempt to retake territory seized by (Sunni) ISIS. A Syrian refugee camp – part of the 1.4 million Syrians driven from their homes as of April 2013.   By 2017 that number will reach 7 million. A UN-run refugee camp in Lebanon – 2013 All of this merely increased the desperate flow of refugees … particularly out of Syria where ISIS was extremely cruel to non-Sunni Arabs (including many Christians).  This of course presented a major problem to the surrounding countries … which did not want to take on the burden of a massive number of impoverished refugees. August 2013 – Refugees heading toward Iraqi Kurdistan February 2014 – more Syrian refugees moving out of their destroyed cities A Syrian refugee camp in Jordan with 115,000 residents.  By 2015 fully 25% of the population of Lebanon was made up of Syrian refugees and 20% of the Jordanian population ... with huge numbers of Syrians scattered all around the countries bordering on Syria ... and even beyond. Many other Syrians have simply taken to the road ... trying to reach well beyond the Syrian borders ... even to Europe September 2015 - Syrian refugees heading across Turkey to Greece Others passed on through the Balkans … but got stopped at the Hungarian border … which had put up barriers to stop the flow of refugees into Hungary (2015) MEANWHILE OBAMA HOPES TO IMPROVE RELATIONS WITH IRAN Obama's hope to soften relations between America and the world of Islam found its greatest disappointment in Iran, though because of the bitterness of Iranian domestic politics, not because of American actions.  After the end of the long and murderous Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, efforts were made on both American and Iranian sides to improve relations.  This was not a straightforward issue because Iran was itself divided deeply into both a very conservative Islamic faction, backed by the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the radical Islamic Revolutionary Guards – and by a modernizing, reformist faction led by pro-business or free market and free-speech civilian leaders.  Neither faction intended to move the country away from its Islamic Revolution.  But each took a very different approach to developing Shi'ite Iran. From 1981 to 1989, the President of Iran was Khamenei (who then in 1989 became Iran's Supreme Leader with the death of Khomeini that year).  During Khamenei's presidency, Iran undertook to purge the country of Western, especially American, cultural influences.  Thousands (the exact number is unknown) of Iranians were killed during his presidency, frequently by the revolutionary courts run by the Revolutionary Guards. But from 1989 to 1997, Iran moved politically in the direction of the modernizing reformers when Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani served as President of Iran.  He was followed in office by Mohammad Khatami, an Islamic cleric, although another moderate, who was Iranian President from 1997 to 2005.  Despite this move to the "center" of politics during Khatami's presidency, relations with America remained highly troubled both because of changing American policies towards Iran and because of a push-back by Iranian conservatives; yet relations with Europe and other parts of the world showed notable improvement as Iran attempted to get its economy up and moving again. Over time the Islamic conservatives became more effective in their efforts to thwart Khatami's reforms at home.  The 2005 national election was fought between the reformer Rafsanjani, who was eligible to run again for the presidency, and the arch-conservative mayor of Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  With only about a 60 percent turnout of the Iranian voting population, Ahmadinejad took 61.7 percent to Rafsanjani's 35.9 percent.  With this election, Iran took a decided turn back toward militant anti-Western – especially anti-American – Islamic nationalism. Soon Ahmadinejad found himself also lined up against the United Nations over the question of the country's developing nuclear power.  His argument that it was being developed for energy purposes appeared totally unbelievable, since the country sits atop one of the world's largest oil and natural gas reserves, and seems hardly to need nuclear power to fuel its economy.  Indeed, with the increasing stridency of the Ahmadinejad presidency, it seemed ever more apparent that he had ultimately other purposes in mind for the nuclear program, especially when he was also pushing hard for the development of an Iranian missile program. In 2009, Iran was due for another presidential election.  Supreme Leader Khamenei made an official endorsement in favor of the re-election of Ahmadinejad. Opposing him was the reformist candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi.  The campaign turned on the issue of the economy (very high inflation and unemployment rate), with Mousavi advocating for a free market system, supported by the middle and upper class of Iran, and Ahmadinejad, continuing his socialist program, supported by Iran's poor and its large group of unemployed.  The elections, with an unexpectedly huge turn-out this time, brought victory for Ahmadinejad with 62.6 percent of the vote reported and Mousavi, with 33.7 percent. But the results were challenged both at home in Iran and abroad because, among other things, of a number of electoral irregularities – principally the 14 million unused ballots that went missing.  The challenge in Iran turned massive and violent. Protesters turned out into the streets, voicing deep anger not seen in Iran since 1979.  Demonstrations (the Iranian "Green Movement") against – as well as counter-demonstrations in support of – Ahmadinejad filled the streets of Tehran.  In the conflict arrests were made, lives were lost, and eventually the regime got the country back under order. Interestingly, internationally, there was a sharp division of opinion on the election, with America and most European countries voicing a concern about the way the election was handled, yet with most of the countries of Asia (including China), Africa and Latin America voicing support of Ahmadinejad's re-election. By this point Obama had ceased his friendly overtures to Iran and found himself taking the standard line of American presidents since the 1979 Iranian revolution. (Obama continued the policy of refusing formal diplomatic relations with Iran.) Obama had become a major voice in the United Nations in the effort to curb Iran's nuclear development under Ahmadinejad.  Obama also made it quite clear that he condemned the Ahmadinejad government's harsh repression of the 2009 Iranian protest movement. In 2013, the newly-elected Iranian President Hassan Rouhani (re-elected in 2017) indicated a desire he had for improved relations with the West.  The American and Western response was highly positive and the two parties agreed to meet. The fruit of that meeting was the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated between Iran on one hand and America, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany on the other, to bring some agreement in the long-debated Iran nuclear program.  The agreement allowed Iran as of January 2016 to continue development of low-enriched uranium used to power nuclear power plants (weapons require a very high level of enrichment), a deep reduction of Iran's uranium stockpile and the number of centrifuges, and sites where low-level enrichment could continue, as well as the shut-down of a heavy-water facility.  All of this was designed to prevent Iran from being able to develop nuclear weapons. In return, economic sanctions imposed on Iran (prohibiting the purchase of Iranian oil) would be lifted gradually, and Iranian banking assets held abroad would likewise be released gradually, once the International Atomic Energy Association inspectors confirmed Iranian conformity to the agreement. Obama and Secretary of State Kerry informed the American press that this agreement was the best way to ensure that Iran would not (for the foreseeable future anyway) be able to develop nuclear weapons capability. But doubters felt that it would be too easy for the Iranians to withdraw from the agreement when it no longer suited their interests.  And the Iranians were well-known for ways they could accomplish things secretly, despite international monitoring.  But for the time being (as long as Obama was in office) America would continue to stand with the JCPOA agreement, key to the new American-Iranian relations. US Secretary of State John Kerry shaking hands with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif agreeing to begin talks concerning an Iran nuclear deal  – Geneva, January 14, 2015 Obama announces agreement on the deal – July 14, 2015 RELATIONS WITH CHINA ... AND NORTH KOREA One of the great hopes of the Obama presidency when it took power in 2009 was to lessen the tensions that had been growing between America and China over the dramatically one-sided trade relationship that favored China because its economy had been allowed to be protected by Chinese mercantilist policies as it entered the competitive world market.  But with the rapid growth of the Chinese economy, the age of the need to protect an infant market system was long past. But the protections remained in place.  As a result, cheap Chinese goods flooded the American market, driving out American producers, and sending trillions of dollars to China as a huge growing dollar reserve – allowing China additional social leverage in its dealings with America. The Chinese used that dollar reserve not only to buy oil for its hungry economy (growing at an annual rate of 9 to 10 percent annually since the 1980s and thus doubling in size approximately every seven years) driving up the price of oil in the process, but also purchasing other scarce minerals, purchasing land development rights in Africa and Latin America, but also buying up the debt of European governments – thus helping them keep afloat, but also placing them as debtors under very persuasive Chinese influence.  However, it was not just troubled European governments that were sliding into this relationship.  The American government also was headed rapidly down this road as it attempted to keep the American economy afloat with government spending, which meant government debt, which meant a larger claim of China on the American government and economy as it gladly bought up American debt with its dollar reserves. What the American economy really needed to get back up and running was a reversal of this dynamic.  And that would have to start with the Chinese allowing its currency, the renminbi (also known as the yuan), to float to a true market exchange value.  But the Chinese were not willing to do that.  The whole system worked beautifully to the advantage of the Chinese economy.  A more expensive renminbi would lower considerably the Chinese ability to export its production, forcing a cutback on production and increasing unemployment within the huge Chinese work force. Of course, the failure of China not to free up its currency was having exactly the same effect on the American workforce.  So the problem was not one of "let's find a compromise," but rather "who is going to win and who is going to lose in this economic tug of war."  As negotiations with the Chinese moved forward during the early Obama years, it was quite apparent that the Chinese were not going to budge.  They figured that they had a lot to lose if they did so.  America was wealthy and could take the heat better than China. But Obama knew that Americans were becoming very agitated over the high unemployment and general stagnation of the economy.  And with the congressional elections coming up in late 2010 Obama sensed that he and his Democratic Party were going to take a big hit from the American voter – which was exactly what happened. In addition to these economic issues impacting direct Chinese-American relations, Obama's decision to "Pivot to Asia" greater American military-diplomatic involvement was received by the Chinese as some kind of new American containment policy with respect to China.  Obama's idea was to strengthen our relations economically and militarily with other Asian powers, such as Australia, South Korea, Taiwan, etc.  Obama claimed that the Pivot to Asia actually included a greater emphasis on Chinese-American relations as well.  But the Chinese leadership was not convinced that this was indeed the case. Also the long-standing role of America as protector of the freedom of navigation through the South China Sea began to come under Chinese challenge when Chinese President Xi Jinping began to talk aloud about protecting its own territorial rights in the South China Sea – territorial rights which literally reached close to the shores of the numerous countries ranged around that sea.  Xi defined the South China Sea as "Chinese territory."  This deeply alarmed Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia, all of which must pass through some or all of the South China Sea in order to trade with Europe, the Middle East, India, etc. China agreed to negotiate maritime rights with the border countries, notably Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia, but made it clear that oil and gas reserves belonged to China alone, and all fishing rights would have to come under Chinese authority. But in 2014 the Philippines challenged China on this matter at the Permanent Court of Arbitration (at The Hague, Netherlands).  Other Southeast Asian countries soon did the same.  In 2016 the Court decided in favor of the Philippines. But China was not moved by this decision. Meanwhile the Chinese in 2014 had begun dredging reefs in the Spratly Islands group (close to the Philippines), creating islands on which they could then build naval and military facilities, with the obvious intent of enforcing their territorial claims from these man-made islands.  By the beginning of 2016, work there was completed.  Also, China was strengthening its navy with the building of yet another aircraft carrier, by which they could also patrol "their waters."  In 2016, both America and China conducted naval exercises in the South China Sea, in an attempt to make their points, in opposition to each other: America to keep the sea open as international high sea – and China to assert its full sovereignty over the sea.  But in the end, China had taken a vastly stronger position in the dispute – one that would only swing even more strongly in China's favor in the future.  There really was little at this point that Obama was willing to do ... fearful of starting a war with China. But that certainly was not going to happen.  China was not looking for war – just strategic position.  Then why, for instance, hadn't Obama also ordered the dredging and military island-building of America's own naval base, somewhere else in the Spratly Islands, as a countering emplacement of American power designed to protect the status of the South China Sea as international high sea?     Ultimately, his "Pivot to Asia" came with no muscle. The world stood in shock as Xi Jinping’s China begins to press forward most forcefully its territorial claim to the waters (and islands) of the South China Sea … ignoring all current standards concerning the neutrality of the high seas. The area is of vital importance to the commerce and economy of many nations that surround the South China Sea. To enforce these territorial claims, the Chinese in 2015 begin to dredge the waters surrounding a number of coral reefs located in the South China Sea … to fill them in with land so as to construct airfield and naval bases on these newly man-made islands.  The world watches in horror ... but does nothing.  This includes the world's major superpower, America – or its President Obama – to stop this territorial grab. Meanwhile, in December of that fateful year 2011, North Korea gets a new leader when Kim Jong-il dies  … and power is transferred to his second son, Kim Jong-Un. Kim Jong-il, center, with his son Kim Jong-un, left, in a photo released by North Korean state media in May 2011 Al Jazeera: "International reaction: Kim Jong-il's death" – December 19, 2011 The rise to power of Kim Jong-un seems only to have made North Korea more belligerent April 8, 2012: A North Korean soldier stands in front of the country's Unha-3 rocket, slated for liftoff in mid April, at a launching site in Tongchang-ri, North Korea.  Note however:  the rocket exploded in mid-air shortly after take-off. Sanctions placed against those who would trade with North Korea seem realistically to have no effect on North Korea’s nuclear weapons development. AT THE SAME TIME RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA TURN SOUR OVER DEVELOPMENTS IN UKRAINE Meanwhile on another key diplomatic front, in his early effort to "restart" relations with the Russians, in September of 2009, Obama announced that the U.S. would end its plans (in the works since 2007) to place a missile shield in Poland and radar intercepts in the Czech Republic (originally planned as a means of preventing a nuclear strike on Europe coming from Iran).  The Russians were very pleased at this strategic withdrawal from their "backyard" – but the Czechs and Poles were shocked, and in America the Democrats supportive and the Republicans upset. Obama countered that the U.S. would be using more mobile ship-based interceptors, and a more sophisticated technology to be deployed by 2018. But here again, Obama failed to understand the symbolic but powerful role that "position" played in the world of international diplomacy. In his effort to improve relations with the Russians, in April of 2010 Obama announced that he and the Russian President Medvedev had agreed, in signing an updating of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), to further reduce their nuclear arms stockpile by about one-third.  But the agreement when put before the Senate for ratification ran into all kinds of trouble.  The biggest problem seemed to develop over the forbidding of the conversion of missile launch sites into defensive missile sites, at a time when America was becoming more interested in developing a system of interceptor missiles that could knock out missiles headed toward the West.  Did this treaty block such defensive missile deployment, or not? The question was not really resolved.  But under pressure not to send the Russians the negative message that America was not interested in an improvement in Russian-American relations (Russian support of American policies in the Middle East was greatly sought) the Treaty was finally approved by the Senate just prior to the end of its 2010 session in late December, 71-26. But ethnic tensions in Ukraine would soon strain greatly American-Russian relations.  The problem was that Ukraine was/is made up of two ethnic groups: Ukrainians and Russians, and the two groups did not always get along with each other.  Most of the country was appropriately Ukrainian in ethnic character.  But the eastern regions of Kharkiv, Lugansk, Donetsk, Odessa and Crimea are heavily Russian, Lugansk and Crimea especially so.  Ukraine's national politics thus constantly gave strong evidence of this ethnic division.  For instance, Yulia Tymoshenko, who was Ukrainian Prime Minister from 2007 to 2010, was ethnically Ukrainian.  But she narrowly lost the national election in 2010 to Viktor Yanukovych, who was ethnically Russian.  Ukrainians were not all that happy about this turnover of power.  But then when (2011) Yanukovych had Tymoshenko arrested and imprisoned for "corruption," Ukrainian outrage spilled into the streets of the Ukrainian capital Kiev.  The protests never let up, and by February of 2014 had become very violent, even revolutionary (termed the "Euromaidan Revolution").  As a consequence, Yanukovych and some of his cabinet went into hiding, and fled, or tried to flee, Ukraine (the latter part of February).  At this point, Russian President Putin decided that the Russian-Ukrainian rivalry in Ukraine necessitated his intervention.  Besides, he had expansionist interests of his own, especially in the joint Ukrainian-Russian naval base located on the Crimean Peninsula at Sevastopol. Obama, who was quite aware of Putin's intentions, was quite upset about how this would compromise Russian-American relations ... and in a 90-minute phone call to Putin urged him not to invade Ukraine, or "serious consequences" would result.  But Putin (recognizing Obama as a man of grand talk but weak action) ignored him, and sent masked and unmarked (no military insignias) soldiers, termed the "little green men" by the international press corps, into the Russian-speaking Eastern provinces of Ukraine "to help his neighbors suffering from Ukrainian persecution." On March 1st, the Russian Duma (Parliament) approved full authorization of the Russian troop entry into Ukraine "to restore the rule of law and protect the population of Ukraine" – despite the fact that thousands of Russian soldiers were at that point already in Ukraine, and had just seized key Ukrainian military bases in the East, including most importantly the vital naval station at Sevastopol.  Out onto the streets the pro-Russian Ukrainians poured, very happy to greet their liberators. But this was just the beginning of troubles in the Eastern areas around Donetsk and Lugansk, when the Ukrainian government fought to retake the rebel provinces, which in mid-March had voted to join Russia.  But ultimately only Crimea (with its naval base at Sebastopol) was formally annexed by Russia.  By August a stalemate of sorts had developed, and a small prisoner exchange was arranged. But the conflict would wear on, and on. Ultimately, Obama's "serious consequences" turned out to be much less than serious (as Putin fully expected).  Obama continued to see Russia as a much-needed partner in what he determined to be more serious crises, such as China's seizing the South China Sea or the rise of the ISIS caliphate in Syria-Iraq. Anyway, Obama was counting on America's European allies to take up the cause of holding back Russian expansion.  Indeed, France and Germany led the 2014-2015 ceasefire talks, with America playing only a minor backup role. Finally, a decision was worked out between Obama and the European Union, placing trade sanctions on Russia (principally its natural gas and oil sales to the West).  But this actually did not change the outcome of the Ukrainian crisis, as that outcome had been decided the day Putin moved his troops into Ukraine.  Also, these sanctions against Russia cut both ways, as the Europeans were themselves highly dependent on Russian natural gas and oil.  All this, on the other hand, cost America very little, being itself a massive producer of oil and natural gas (to the great distress of many "pro-environment" Americans). Like Carter, Obama wanted to impress the world that with him in the White House, the world could expect a friendlier, "less imperialistic" America in foreign affairs.  Thus Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a "reset" button, signifying the new Obama approach to Russian-American relations (actually the Russian word used was "overload," startling Lavrov … until the confusion could be cleared up!) – March 6th 2009 The Ukrainian crisis of 2014 In the former Russian or Soviet Empire,  multi-ethnic Ukraine is having problems of its own (Russian-speaking versus Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians). This ethnic struggle is symbolized in the rivalry between  Ukrainian-speaking Yulia Tymoshenko who was Ukrainian Prime Minister from 2007 to 2010 … and who in 2010 ran for the Ukrainian Presidency but lost to Russian-speaking Viktor Yanukovych.  Yanukovych then had her arrested and imprisoned for "corruption."  Ukrainians grow outraged at this blatantly political move. Protests begun in 2011 continue to occur sporadically  … turning violent by the beginning of 2014. Putin's Russia invades Ukraine – February 2014 Tymoshenko is finally released from prison in February … and Yanukovich takes that  as the signal to abandon the Ukrainian presidency and head to the Russian- speaking East  … calling on Russian President Putin to come to his aid. At this point (also February 2014) Putin decides that the Russian-Ukrainian rivalry in Ukraine necessitates his intervention (besides he has expansionist interests of his own, especially in the joint Ukrainian-Russian naval base located at Sevastopol in Ukraine). Obama is quite upset and in a 90-minute phone call to Putin, urges him not to invade Ukraine  … or serious consequences would result.  Putin ignores him … and sends masked and unmarked (no military insignias) soldiers (termed "little green men" by the international press corps) into the Russian-speaking Eastern provinces of Ukraine to "help his neighbors suffering from Ukrainian persecution." On March 1st (2014) the Russian Parliament voted to send Russian troops into Ukraine to "restore the rule of law and protect the population of Ukraine" (although thousands of Russian soldiers are already in Ukraine and have just seized key military bases in the east, including the vital naval station at Sevastopol. Pro-Russians were happy to greet their "liberators." But this was just the beginning of troubles in the Eastern areas around Donetsk and Luhansk … when the Ukrainian government fought to retake the rebel provinces which in mid-March had voted to join Russia ... though only Crimea was annexed formally. By August a stalemate had developed … and a small prisoner exchange was arranged.  But the conflict would wear on … and on.  Putin arriving in the newly-seized Crimean naval base at Sevastopol … saluted by Russian naval officers for his bold action. Go on to the next section:  Social Policy  Miles H. Hodges