Schoolyard Fights

One boy jostles another.  The second boy jostles back harder, putting his shoulder into it, to send a message.  The first boy drops his books to use two hands to push the second boy into the wall of lockers.  The second boy drops his books, and comes forward and hits the other with a closed fist.  

A crowd circles.   Fight! Fight! Fight!

Were there reservations and calculations going through each boy's mind?  Very possibly, but those were invisible.  What was visible was the shoving and the fist.  Did each boy want to be fighting?  Maybe, but maybe not. Each boy had pride at stake, and face.  There was no graceful way to back down.

At every point in the escalation each boy knows that what he does is sending a message of about who can push whom, done in the presence of friends and allies.  Everyone is taking it in and calculating its implications for the next confrontation.  The girls are watching.  Friends are watching.  They are all communicating in the body language of dominance.

Syria.   Three years ago Barrack Obama said that if Assad used chemical weapons it would be crossing a red line.  He should not have said that because that escalated the importance of whatever message might have been sent by Obama's future actions or inactions.   Assad used chemical weapons.   Obama took the matter to Congress, which wanted no part of the decision on whether to go to war.  Consulting with Congress looked like "weakness", not "Constitutional government."

Escalation:  Assad and Russia call American missiles a "war crime"

Some hawks demanded he go for it and bomb someone. Commentators and politicians of all persuasions noted that Obama called out a "red line" then did nothing.  It was a political disaster for Obama.  

Trump said that we should stay out of a complicated quagmire.   Obama did not respond with a bomb, doing in fact what Trump urged.  It didn't help him.  He looked weak, not smart.  Trump sounded bellicose, so he looked smart and not weak.  It was a loser for Obama.

Assad, maybe with Russian fore-knowledge but probably not, used chemical weapons.  Trump was being accused of looking too cozy with Russia.  It was perfect for him.  He chose to defend the "beautiful babies", called it a "red line" and bombed a Syrian air base.   The cable news show hosts, Fox News, the various senators all made the same comment:  Trump was sending a message that we would not tolerate certain actions by Assad, plus a broader message that Trump was unpredictable, willing to use force at a moment's notice.

There was no coordinated angry opposition to Trump so Trump had a very good week.  He apparently unified the country, he looked strong, he got good press, he changed the subject from his being in cahoots with Russians.

Russia backs Assad because Assad gives something Russia needs--an ally in the region of a warm water exit from the Black Sea interior of Russia. There are big issues at stake.  Russia wants to expand its "sphere of influence" extending it all the way to Syria.  American policy has been to contain Soviet--now Russian--influence back to its immediate neighborhood.  Important issues are involved for every side.  There is big-power jostling.  Russian influence in Syria sends a nonverbal message.  We are here at the western border of the Middle East because we have a right to be here and you cannot stop us.  American policy is to push back, but maybe it takes a shove.  Missile strikes on an air base that housed Russians is a shove.  

There was maybe a big unsaid drama going on with the boys shoving in the Junior High hallway.   Maybe there was a girl involved.  In Syria there is a big prize involved: does Russia really belong with an asset on the Mediterranean?  Will Russia in fact harbor ISIS if it means they get to leapfrog into new turf?  The US has a big prize at risk: the Middle East was ours and Israel's to mess with, with Russia out of the picture.  Now not only are they in the picture, they are an important player in it.

A lot can go wrong.

Even the anti-neocon press is confused.

When people send messages with missiles and bombs.  Body language is powerful but it forces the other side to respond with its own powerful message. The news shows are all full of discussion of "messages".  Trump is sending a message about ISIS, says our Secretary of State, not about Assad.  Charles Krauthammer says we are sending a message that there is "a new sheriff in town."  Other pundits say the message is a "pinprick" message, doing the least possible response, with the message being one of "restraint."  Others say it is primarily a message to Russia, telling them to "restrain Assad."  Others say it is primarily a message to Congress, "I don't need your OK."  Everyone agrees it is a message to the public, "I am Donald Trump and I am strong and decisive."

Messages, open for interpretation.  

Foreign policy establishments are experienced at interpreting messages, but the message making takes place in a context of domestic politics.   The crowd is watching and shouting.  Are the schoolkids shouting "Fight, fight, fight" because they are calling attention in horror or in encouragement?  

Will the messages spiral back down?   Maybe.  But the American experience in the past fifty years with war messages is that it is much easier to get in than it is to get out.   That was the message Trump sent before he was president, but then he was speaking with tweets.

It is much more powerful message when it is attached to a missile, but it is more subject to misinterpretation.  And people can ignore a tweet but cannot ignore a bomb.  The other players must respond, somehow.