Kevin Drum

Why is President Obama escalating U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war? Dan Drezner offers this take, which he's been murmuring about occasionally for the past year:

[Obama's goal] is to ensnare Iran and Hezbollah into a protracted, resource-draining civil war, with as minimal costs as possible. This is exactly what the last two years have accomplished.... at an appalling toll in lives lost.

This policy doesn't require any course correction... so long as rebels are holding their own or winning. A faltering Assad simply forces Iran et al into doubling down and committing even more resources....For the low, low price of aiding and arming the rebels, the U.S. preoccupies all of its adversaries in the Middle East.

....Now let's be clear: to describe this as "morally questionable" would be an understatement. It's a policy that makes me very uncomfortable... until one considers the alternatives. What it's not, however, is a return to liberal hawkery.

In a nutshell, the idea here is that we want both sides to be evenly matched so the fighting continues as long as possible. That will weaken pretty much everyone we hate: Assad, Hezbollah, Iran, and the Al Qaeda groups among the rebels. As long as these folks continue killing each other, we're happy.

Is it a sign of terminal naiveté that I find myself unable to believe that this is conscious Obama administration policy? Or has Drezner simply been watching too much Game of Thrones?

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

This is genuinely fascinating. A guy named Terrance Brown is on trial in Florida for allegedly masterminding the robbery of a Brinks armored truck. Prosecutors have used phone records to track the movements of one of Brown's codefendants, but guess what? They don't have phone data for Brown himself because his carrier apparently didn't keep it.

You can see where this is going, right? Here's the LA Times:

On Sunday, after federal officials acknowledged the NSA trove, Brown's attorney, Marshall Dore Louis, filed a midtrial motion asking the NSA to turn over Brown's phone records. "The records are material and favorable to Mr. Brown's defense," Louis wrote, adding that the request was "not intended as a general fishing expedition."

Everyone quoted in the article expects the federal government to fight back like crazed weasels against this order, and I don't doubt that they're right. They'll probably win, too. But it would certainly be an intriguing case for the Supreme Court to decide, wouldn't it?

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

Five years after the Great Recession began, the US economy appears to be rebounding a bit. But two recent bits of evidence suggest that the impact of the recession on ordinary workers may have been even worse than we thought—and that the impact of future recessions might be worse too.

First off, a new paper by a trio of researchers confirms some old news: Adjusted for inflation, wages began stagnating for both men and women 10 years ago. Men's wages have actually decreased slightly since 2000, while women's wages, which had been rising steadily for decades, flattened out nearly to zero. But it could have been worse. Economists have long known that there's a floor to wages because employers don't like to reduce nominal wages. If you make $10 per hour, they won't cut your wage to $9 per hour. They'll just hold it at $10 and let inflation eat it away. This phenomenon is called wage stickiness.

But in "Wage Adjustment in the Great Recession," these researchers have found that wage stickiness, which is driven mostly by social convention, not economic law, might be dying out. During the Great Recession, employers were increasingly willing to cut nominal wages. Among hourly workers, the usual number who experience wage cuts is around 15 percent. That had risen to 25 percent by 2011. Among nonhourly workers, the number rose from about 25 percent to nearly 35 percent. Increasingly, it seems, wage stickiness isn't acting as a barrier against wage losses.

So what does this mean in the real world? Economist Jared Bernstein points us to the chart below. It shows growth in nominal wages, growth in benefits, and growth in total compensation (wages plus benefits). The news is grim. Total compensation (the gray line) grew at about 3 to 4 percent per year during most of the aughts. Since the Great Recession hit, that's dropped to 1 to 2 percent. This is less than the inflation rate, which means that even when you account for benefits, real compensation has been declining since 2008.

Bottom line: Wage stickiness is disappearing, and with it a social convention that prevented wages from dropping too harshly even during recessions. As a result, wages are getting cut in bad times and never catching back up in good times. This is the world we live in today.

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

Ah crap. A couple of months ago, President Obama caved in to the hawks and announced $127 million in "nonlethal" aid to the Syrian rebels. Today he caved in again and trotted out Ben Rhodes to announce a further escalation. We'll now be sending some decidedly lethal aid to the rebels:

The United States has concluded that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in its fight against opposition forces, and President Obama has authorized direct U.S. military support to the rebels, the White House said Thursday…Rhodes did not detail what he called the expanded military support, but it is expected initially to consist of light arms and ammunition. He said the shipments would be "responsive to the needs" expressed by the rebel command.

The next step, of course, is to cave in to the hawks and send the rebels the antitank and antiaircraft weaponry they want. I figure, what? Another couple of months before Obama decides to do that? Then the no-fly zone. Then…something else.

The official justification for the new arms shipments is verification of some "small scale" use of sarin gas by the Assad regime. However, the real justification seems to be this:

After weeks of efforts to organize a conference at which the Assad government and the opposition were to negotiate a political transition, the administration is now slowing down that effort, fearful that if it were held now, Mr. Assad would be in too strong a position to make any concessions…Now, an administration official said, the focus will switch from setting a date to fortifying the rebels before they sit across the table from the government.

Great. So now we're committed to continuing escalation until Assad cries uncle and agrees to come to the table. That strategy doesn't have a sterling track record.

This seems like a good time to embed this video of Fareed Zakaria explaining why it's such a bad idea to intervene in Syria. This isn't just the usual anti-intervention shtick, either. It's a broad overview of who's who and why Syria's civil war is likely to last a very long time indeed. It's well worth five minutes of your time.

• Print
• Email
• Tweet