Peter L. Berger's Blog, page 635

China and Russia Team Up to Practice Amphibious Assaults

These days, there’s something unsettling about hearing the phrase ‘amphibious assault’ in the same sentence as ‘Russia.’ And given the news from the South China Sea, you really don’t want ‘China’ added to that mix. But here we are. On July 20th, the Diplomat ran an article titled “China and Russia to Stage Amphibious Assault Exercise in Sea of Japan”:

“Representatives of the headquarters of the Russian Pacific Fleet and the Navy of the People’s Liberation Army of China have carried out major work for the planning of the Chinese warships’ visit to Vladivostok port, the cultural program, sports competitions and all the tactical events of the sea, land, and air parts of the maneuvers,” [Russian Pacific Fleet spokesman Roman] Martov noted. […]

The 20 warships and support vessels from both navies will also be joined by carrier-based aircraft, Martov told TASS. Russia’s Pacific Fleet consists of around 70 vessels including four landing ships and five landing crafts. China is currently in the process of expanding its fleet of amphibious warfare ships with the construction and gradual induction of six new Type-071 Yuzhao-class vessels. […]The exercise will take place in the Sea of Japan and off the coast of Russia’s Primorsky territory –  approximately 250 miles away from Japan — and include for the first time a joint amphibious assault drill.

Because they combine everyone’s biggest worry about Russia (invasions) and everyone’s biggest fears about China (disputed-island-based use of military force), the drills will be taken as a seriously provocative move by, well, everyone—but especially by Japan. Their location will only deepen tensions: A territorial dispute over the remote Kuril Islands, northeast of Hokkaido, has kept Japan and Russia from signing a formal peace treaty ending World War II.

Moreover, many fear that as China gets richer and more powerful, it will team up with Russia to change the tide of history and to undo the reigning world order. These fears are overblown. The best evidence for the emergence of real warmth between Russia and China—a $400 billion gas deal signed late in 2014—is probably best interpreted as an opportunistic play by an energy-hungry Beijing to take advantage of its oil-rich neighbor at a vulnerable moment. As Lilia Shevtsova has argued in our pages, Russia has more to fear from its relationship with China than the West has to fear from the two countries’ coming together.But just because some exaggerate the dangers of the Russia-China relationship doesn’t mean these drills are unimportant. It is a genuine problem if Russia gains the ability to mount amphibious assaults, given its penchant for invasions. That’s why we saw such brouhaha over France’s prospective delivery of the Mistral-class warships. And given Beijing’s greedy claims to rightful ownership in the South China Sea, the country’s naval power and prowess is a matter of serious concern for anyone who cares about the future of world order.

What Democracy Doesn’t Look Like

Earlier this year, the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, a nonprofit organization, announced a raffle for voting in the L.A. County School Board elections. Those who voted were automatically registered in the contest by the nonprofit, which ran the raffle and provided the cash, and the winner was to receive $25,000. Now the “Voteria” prize is back in the news as the group awarded it last week to a security guard.

Though this event was not sponsored by any level of Los Angeles’s city government, including the School Board itself, it nonetheless marks a sad state of affairs for participatory democracy in America. The contest was initiated largely to spur voter turnout, which in Los Angeles sometimes drops to below 10 percent. It seems it may have been marginally effective—the prize is credited by some as possibly bringing out more Latino voters. It may thereby have handed the race to Ref Rodriguez, a Latino candidate in favor of independent charter schools. Still, on the whole the cash prize hardly lured out any more voters than usual, with the election seeing a turnout of only around 10 percent.But the success or failure of the raffle is besides the point. If this is the only way LA can get voter turnout, that’s a serious indictment of the city’s political culture. The raffle is something that a healthy democracy shouldn’t need and the kind of thing no healthy democracy would do.

Xi Tells the PLA What’s What

Xi Jinping is not mincing his words when it comes to the PLA, China’s military. In a recent speech, the president spoke to officers who had served under the powerful general Xu Caihou until Xu was very publicly snared by the wide net of China’s ongoing party purge. In his speech, Xi laid down the law, as Shanghai Daily reports:

Education is also needed to ensure that military personnel recognize the Party’s absolute leadership over the army and help them follow the orders of the Party and the commission at all times and under all situations, he said.

Xi also asked Party members and cadres to be strict in political discipline and rules.The influence of Xu Caihou’s activities, which had violated Party rules and broke the law, had profoundly damaged army-building efforts, Xi said […]The president said that the negative impact of Xu’s case had to be eradicated while the proud tradition and sound work style of the Red Army should be upheld and maintained to enhance the purity and solidarity of the military force.

Meanwhile outside the military, the purge of powerful Party officials continues apace. Using the rubric of a populist anti-corruption campaign, Xi has declared open season on anyone in China who would oppose him, and seemingly nobody is safe. Just this week, the antiseptically named Central Commission for Discipline Inspection brought the hammer down on yet another “tiger”, an official from the administration of Xi’s predecessor, Hu Jintao. The New York Times has more:p;p++)u[p].apply(s,t);return s}function a(n,e){f[n]=c(n).concat(e)}function c(n){return f[n]||[]}function u(){return t(e)}var f={};return{on:a,emit:e,create:u,listeners:c,_events:f}}function r(){return{}}var o="nr@context",i=n("gos");e.exports=t()},{gos:"7eSDFh"}],ee:[function(n,e){e.exports=n("QJf3ax")},{}],3:[function(n,e){function t(n){return function(){r(n,[(new Date).getTime()].concat(i(arguments)))}}var r=n("handle"),o=n(1),i=n(2);"undefined"==typeof window.newrelic&&(newrelic=window.NREUM);var a=["setPageViewName","addPageAction","setCustomAttribute","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","noticeError"];o(a,function(n,e){window.NREUM[e]=t("api-"+e)}),e.exports=window.NREUM},{1:12,2:13,handle:"D5DuLP"}],gos:[function(n,e){e.exports=n("7eSDFh")},{}],"7eSDFh":[function(n,e){function t(n,e,t){if(r.call(n,e))return n[e];var o=t();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(n,e,{value:o,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),o}catch(i){}return n[e]=o,o}var r=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;e.exports=t},{}],D5DuLP:[function(n,e){function t(n,e,t){return r.listeners(n).length?r.emit(n,e,t):(o[n]||(o[n]=[]),void o[n].push(e))}var r=n("ee").create(),o={};e.exports=t,t.ee=r,r.q=o},{ee:"QJf3ax"}],handle:[function(n,e){e.exports=n("D5DuLP")},{}],XL7HBI:[function(n,e){function t(n){var e=typeof n;return!n||"object"!==e&&"function"!==e?-1:n===window?0:i(n,o,function(){return r++})}var r=1,o="nr@id",i=n("gos");e.exports=t},{gos:"7eSDFh"}],id:[function(n,e){e.exports=n("XL7HBI")},{}],loader:[function(n,e){e.exports=n("G9z0Bl")},{}],G9z0Bl:[function(n,e){function t(){var n=h.info=NREUM.info;if(n&&n.licenseKey&&n.applicationID&&f&&f.body){c(l,function(e,t){e in n||(n[e]=t)}),h.proto="https"===d.split(":")[0]||n.sslForHttp?"https://":"http://",a(... e=f.createElement("script");e.src=h.proto+n.agent,f.body.appendChild(e)}}function r(){"complete"===f.readyState&&o()}function o(){a("mark",["domContent",i()])}function i(){return(new Date).getTime()}var a=n("handle"),c=n(1),u=(n(2),window),f=u.document,s="addEventListener",p="attachEvent",d=(""+location).split("?")[0],l={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",agent:"js-agent.newrelic.com/nr-593.min.js"... t(n,e){var t=[],o="",i=0;for(o in n)r.call(n,o)&&(t[i]=e(o,n[o]),i+=1);return t}var r=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;e.exports=t},{}],13:[function(n,e){function t(n,e,t){e||(e=0),"undefined"==typeof t&&(t=n?n.length:0);for(var r=-1,o=t-e||0,i=Array(0>o?0:o);++r

The charges against the official, Ling Jihua, 58, are the result of an internal investigation begun last December by the party’s Politburo, which found evidence that he took bribes, committed adultery and improperly hoarded a large amount of state and party “core secrets,” according to a report by the state-run Xinhua news agency.

The decision to prosecute Mr. Ling, who once held a position akin to that of White House chief of staff under Mr. Hu, is the latest move by Mr. Hu’s successor, President Xi Jinping, as he seeks to scour the party of official corruption while purging his political rivals, experts say.

p;p++)u[p].apply(s,t);return s}function a(n,e){f[n]=c(n).concat(e)}function c(n){return f[n]||[]}function u(){return t(e)}var f={};return{on:a,emit:e,create:u,listeners:c,_events:f}}function r(){return{}}var o="nr@context",i=n("gos");e.exports=t()},{gos:"7eSDFh"}],ee:[function(n,e){e.exports=n("QJf3ax")},{}],3:[function(n,e){function t(n){return function(){r(n,[(new Date).getTime()].concat(i(arguments)))}}var r=n("handle"),o=n(1),i=n(2);"undefined"==typeof window.newrelic&&(newrelic=window.NREUM);var a=["setPageViewName","addPageAction","setCustomAttribute","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","noticeError"];o(a,function(n,e){window.NREUM[e]=t("api-"+e)}),e.exports=window.NREUM},{1:12,2:13,handle:"D5DuLP"}],gos:[function(n,e){e.exports=n("7eSDFh")},{}],"7eSDFh":[function(n,e){function t(n,e,t){if(r.call(n,e))return n[e];var o=t();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(n,e,{value:o,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),o}catch(i){}return n[e]=o,o}var r=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;e.exports=t},{}],D5DuLP:[function(n,e){function t(n,e,t){return r.listeners(n).length?r.emit(n,e,t):(o[n]||(o[n]=[]),void o[n].push(e))}var r=n("ee").create(),o={};e.exports=t,t.ee=r,r.q=o},{ee:"QJf3ax"}],handle:[function(n,e){e.exports=n("D5DuLP")},{}],XL7HBI:[function(n,e){function t(n){var e=typeof n;return!n||"object"!==e&&"function"!==e?-1:n===window?0:i(n,o,function(){return r++})}var r=1,o="nr@id",i=n("gos");e.exports=t},{gos:"7eSDFh"}],id:[function(n,e){e.exports=n("XL7HBI")},{}],loader:[function(n,e){e.exports=n("G9z0Bl")},{}],G9z0Bl:[function(n,e){function t(){var n=h.info=NREUM.info;if(n&&n.licenseKey&&n.applicationID&&f&&f.body){c(l,function(e,t){e in n||(n[e]=t)}),h.proto="https"===d.split(":")[0]||n.sslForHttp?"https://":"http://",a(... e=f.createElement("script");e.src=h.proto+n.agent,f.body.appendChild(e)}}function r(){"complete"===f.readyState&&o()}function o(){a("mark",["domContent",i()])}function i(){return(new Date).getTime()}var a=n("handle"),c=n(1),u=(n(2),window),f=u.document,s="addEventListener",p="attachEvent",d=(""+location).split("?")[0],l={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",agent:"js-agent.newrelic.com/nr-593.min.js"... t(n,e){var t=[],o="",i=0;for(o in n)r.call(n,o)&&(t[i]=e(o,n[o]),i+=1);return t}var r=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;e.exports=t},{}],13:[function(n,e){function t(n,e,t){e||(e=0),"undefined"==typeof t&&(t=n?n.length:0);for(var r=-1,o=t-e||0,i=Array(0>o?0:o);++r

The steady, tightening scrutiny was almost identical to the methods used by Mr. Xi to topple other high-ranking officials, including Bo Xilai, a former Politburo member now serving life in prison on corruption charges and Zhou Yongkang, the former domestic security chief and retired member of the Politburo standing committee who was sentenced to life in prison last month. Both were accused of conspiring directly against Mr. Xi.

Clearly, Xi thinks his plan to consolidate power in his own hands is going well. And he’s right. The fact that he can get away with publicly tongue-lashing the PLA and locking up any Party member who’s not in his good books leaves little doubt that there’s a new game in China.

Chinese Stagnation Begets Green Progress

China’s smoggy skies are a little less toxic these days, thanks to…sluggish economic growth. Beijing has been actively trimming overcapacity in industrial sectors, a part of the economy that has helped inflate China’s phenomenal growth rate but now is up for culling as Xi Jinping pursues his “war on pollution.” The WSJ reports:

Official air-pollution data released by China’s government and monitoring by the U.S. embassy show levels of fine-particulate matter damaging to human health—known as PM2.5—fell more than 15% in the capital in the first half of 2015, compared with a year earlier. The city’s 21 million residents have been greeted with unusual stretches of blue skies.

While measures taken by Beijing are partly behind the change, just as important is what’s happening in the sprawling industrial areas that encircle it…The bleak industrial city of Shahe, 200 miles south of the capital, boomed for much of this century. These days, small glass producers there that haven’t already closed for lack of business have been targeted by local authorities to upgrade equipment or shut operations. Dozens are already gone. […]Under pressure from Beijing, local officials last year forced [Shahe-based] Jindong Glass to close a 10-year-old factory, cutting about 200 jobs, said Mr. Li, the other Jindong executive.

It’s hard to declare marginally clearer skies a triumph for China when it comes at the cost of development. Green policies frequently find themselves in conflict with economic growth, but there are also ways to grow green—pursuing growth and going green aren’t by nature mutually exclusive. Telework, for example, comes to mind as a way to both improve quality of life and productivity while pulling cars off the street.

Let’s hope greens don’t alight on what’s happening in China as a prototype for their next harebrained policy prescription. It’s not hard to imagine the modern environmental movement in effect cheering mass unemployment and negative GDP growth as a triumph for the planet.

Three’s Company: Uber, De Blasio, and Yellow Cab

Uber is making waves in New York City. The company—whose low-cost ride-hailing app faces backlash from San Francisco to South Africa—has begun an aggressive (and quite effective) campaign to fight a law proposed by NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio that would cap the company’s growth for one year. The city council could vote as early as Thursday on the proposal, but Uber isn’t taking the prospect of the restriction sitting down. NYPost:

The app-based car service will extend its multi-million-dollar TV ad campaign attacking de Blasio into August — while taxi-industry activists are ripping City Hall’s proposed one-year freeze on Uber licenses as unhelpful. […]

The extension will increase the ad buy from an estimated $5 million to as much as $10 million.The taxi industry has pumped more than $600,000 into de Blasio-controlled committees since January 2013, and Uber’s ads accuse the mayor of “pushing the agenda of big taxi donors.”

Part of the company’s strategy has been to add a “de Blasio” feature to its app platform, which depicts a dystopian future where a user looking for an Uber ride is informed that there are no cars available (or available only after a long wait). And yet, it seems that Big Taxi is even less pleased with the proposed legislation than Uber is:

“This legislation does nothing for yellow taxis. It has the effect of legitimizing a business model that is not complying with the law. It is a charade. It is a bit of a farce,” said Todd Higgins, the lawyer representing credit unions that provide loans to medallion owners.

Essentially, Yellow Cab is arguing, New York State law provides the taxi industry with monopolistic, exclusive rights for ride-seeking travelers. The legal question, then, is whether Uber violates this law or whether the company can skirt the system because its users call cars via a mobile app. But there are bigger issues at play. The Uber debate is a microcosm of the debate over the larger changes that are ushering in a new information and sharing economy and it raises questions about how properly to regulate companies that offer superior services but which undermine and change markets both longstanding and large.

In a time when the sharing economy is on the minds of presidential hopefuls (some more positive about it than others), those, like de Blasio, who are promoting policies that seek to restrain it may find those policies a hard sell to the younger demographic. Ultimately, the simple fact is that consumers’ preferences have changed; at the end of the day, New Yorkers (and others) are just trying to get from point A to point B. Mayor de Blasio ought to get out of their way.

UPDATE: Watch Walter Russell Mead in Dialogue with Sen. John McCain

UPDATE: While the event is over, the complete footage is now available at Hudson Institute’s website here. Particularly watch for Sen. McCain’s response to the recent comments on his military service, the Iran Deal, how to handle ISIS & Vladmir Putin, and his thoughts on China and America’s strategy in response.

Starting at 11:45 AM Eastern today, TAI Editor-at-large Walter Russell Mead will be interviewing Sen. John McCain at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. For about an hour, WRM “will explore Senator McCain’s perspective on America’s role in the world, the pending U.S.-Iran nuclear deal, the rapid rise of the Islamic State, Russia, growing tensions in the South China Sea, U.S. defense readiness and reform, and other challenges facing American policymakers today and in the years ahead.”For those of our readers who are not in D.C.—or not free to attend—don’t worry! You can watch the live-stream of what’s sure to be a fascinating discussion on Hudson’s website or follow our Twitter handle, @aminterest, for live-tweeting.

Sanctions-Free Iran Both Opportunity and Threat to Russia

As the West prepares to roll back sanctions on Iran as part of the proposed nuclear deal, energy markets are looking at the prospect of a flood of new supplies of oil and gas. Politico reports that Iranian gas could be a big opportunity for Moscow:

…Iran’s reopening presents Russian companies such as Gazprom and Lukoil, which have been there before, with the chance put money into potentially lucrative new projects, including oil and gas production, pipelines, petrochemicals, nuclear energy, and, eventually, even liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.

“There may be a bigger convergence of business interests between Russia and Iran now, given that Russia is being increasingly sidelined by Europe,” said Ellie Geranmayeh, an Iran expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

But that opportunity is also a way for Moscow to mitigate the threat that Tehran poses to its global market share:

“It’s really about securing a market share for Gazprom,” [Valentina Kretzschmar, director of upstream corporate research at the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie] said. “Russia would be better-positioned to protect its market share if it has a position in Iran. It’s all about controlling that gas; it’s a global market share whether the gas goes to Asia or to Europe.”

Russia and Iran are both petrostates that, if sanctions are lifted, will once again have a vested interest in the European market. Because both produce a similar grade of crude, Moscow stands to be the biggest loser when Tehran returns to the scene—after all, it was largely Russia that stepped in to supply Europe when sanctions took effect in 2011.

So while Gazprom and Lukoil stand to gain productive new investments with the removal of Iranian sanctions, their involvement will smack of the can’t-beat-’em-join-’em adage. Both countries will be looking to out-muscle the other to ply their wares in an increasingly crowded global market.

Signs of a Law School Turnaround

It’s been a never-ending torrent of bad news for law schools in the last few years—fewer applicants, fewer jobs for graduates, and signs of upheaval in the industry. But the precipitous decline in law school enrollment may finally be showing signs of abating, as the National Law Journal reports:

Legal educators are cautiously optimistic that the 2015-16 academic year will mark the low point for law school enrollment, and that the number of applicants next year will start to recover from a five-year slide…

Two data points fuel their hopes. With the admissions cycle wrapping up, the number of applicants to American Bar Association-accredited law schools declined by a modest 2 percent compared with the previous year — the smallest reduction in four years, according to the Law School Admission Council. The number of applicants fell by more than 10 percent each year from 2011 to 2013.

Meanwhile, the number of people taking the Law School Admission Test has increased in each of the three sitting since December — spiking 6.6 percent last month. “Historically, the June LSAT is the start of the new admissions season for law schools, and June along with October have the largest number of first-time test takers,” said Jeff Thomas, executive director of prelaw programs for Kaplan Test Prep. “There’s reason for optimism.”

Prospective lawyers might be tempted to interpret the new numbers as evidence that the JD is recovering. And there may be something to this—the market for legal services in the 1990s and the early 2000s was grossly inflated, and the decline in applications over the last five years represented a much-needed market correction.

But those contributing to the uptick in applications should know that the legal profession will likely never be the automatic ticket to a middle class life it once was. Innovations in information technology are continuing to eat away at the available jobs for recent graduates, and despite the supposed recovery in the industry, only six in 10 newly minted JDs found jobs as lawyers last year. Law schools are overdue for downsizing and reform—perhaps even for integration into undergraduate programs—to adjust to these new realities.

The bursting of the law school bubble was not just a result of the sluggish post-recession economy; it was symptomatic of a broader crisis that the industry has yet fully to come to terms with. While the latest ABA and LSAT numbers show that applications may have reached their nadir, at least for now, they should not be interpreted as evidence that the high-flying industry of a decade ago will come back anytime soon.

The Cost of a Minimum Wage Raise

A few months ago, the Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution raising the city’s minimum wage to $15 per hour by the year 2020, and already some companies—particularly in the city’s lucrative garments industry—are preparing to move locations or slow hiring. The Wall Street Journal reports:

The wage law also will result in higher prices, said Steve Barraza, chief executive of Los Angeles designer and manufacturer Tianello Inc. Already as wages have increased over the past two decades, the company has focused on luxury products, which are profitable but produced in lower volumes.

Those products require fewer workers to make […]He does fear that his suppliers, however, will move out of the city.Brian Weitman, chief executive of STC-QST LLC, a supplier of items such as zippers, pocket linings and buttons, says the exodus is already on its way. He said clients have told him they plan to move out of downtown L.A. before the wage law is fully phased in.The higher minimum wage, he said, will likely speed the conversion of the downtown area from warehouses and small factories to luxury lofts and high-end restaurants. “Five years from now, there won’t be manufacturing in the city anymore,” he said.

This flight of manufacturing businesses and the stable jobs they provide encourages an infill of luxury industries, hollowing out the middle and working classes and turning districts into playgrounds for the hip and rich.

According to the WSJ, other cities like St. Louis, New York, and Washington, D.C are now looking to Los Angeles for guidance. Policy experimentation at local levels of government, including in cities, is a good thing—the “laboratories of democracy” have been a mainstay of American success. And American communities are diverse enough that a policy will sometimes work well in one place and terribly in another. But some policies—even well-intentioned ones—tend not to work, and a high minimum wage is one of them. Seattle and San Francisco, it is true, have $15 minimum wages, and they are flourishing. But they are also two of the most unequal cities in the United States. Most of their wealth is produced in their burgeoning tech sectors, which employ smaller numbers of degree-holding workers, and in these West Coast hubs it is harder for the working class to find unskilled labor positions.LA should bear the examples of San Francisco and Seattle in mind as it approaches 2020. And the cities watching LA should make their decision based on what kind of places they would like to be.

What Price? What Stakes?

In countering the Islamic State, Washington tends to debate policy options bounded by costs that we are presumptively willing to bear. So we debate: What will the Kurds or the Al Anbar Sunnis be able to do with weapons, if we go around Baghdad? What if we insert several hundred more special forces?

This approach holds risks for the region and for us. As Ronald Reagan said of failing U.S. policies in the mid-1970s, “Wandering without aim describes [our] policy. . . . We gave just enough support to one side to encourage it to fight and die, but too little to give them a chance of winning. Meanwhile we’re disliked by the winner, distrusted by the loser, and viewed by the world as weak and unsure.”Tactical evaluations are necessary, but sound policy decisions require more. What we should do also depends in some measure on what is at stake for us.What was at stake for America in the 1990s in Afghanistan? Many then said, “not much.” One group or another would emerge from Afghan squabbles, supposedly with little consequence for realist America. Taliban atrocities against Afghans did little to shift that assessment. One particular outcome—September 11 and 3,000 dead Americans—changed that.But the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks were only one possible outcome of an Afghan terrorist state. Multiple, bipartisan National Commissions in the 1990s warned that America could face a much more catastrophic terrorist attack using biological or other weapons of mass destruction. Casualties from a single day of such attacks, wise men warned, could exceed tens of thousands.In fact, we now know that Islamic terrorists in the 1990s sought such weapons. Radical rhetoric and Islamic rulings justify such attacks. Herein lay not an unforeseeable risk, but a plausible and well-noted one.Concern about such an attack rightly or wrongly affected President George W. Bush’s post-September 11 assessment of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Bush feared not Iraq’s current plans, but, as he put it, the “gathering threat” posed by a murderously aggressive regime that had proven WMD capabilities. Might Saddam, left in power, have further disrupted the region, armed terrorists, or surreptitiously launched a WMD attack against America or its allies, dwarfing September 11 losses? These possibilities drove Bush.By removing Saddam preemptively, Bush accepted the burden of never knowing definitively what risks we might have run.Now, once again, we must ask: What is at stake for America in Iraq and the Middle East? Once again, many say, “not much,” or at least that the stakes merit only limited assistance from American air support and special forces. It is primarily someone else’s battle, these voices argue, and such aid should enable local forces to defeat or contain ISIS. In any case, they insist, greater American intervention would ultimately be futile and make matters worse. After all, American misadventures brought us ISIS as it is today. In this view, the fracturing of post-Saddam Iraq was inevitable, not the direct result of America’s 2011 withdrawal. Or else they predict that Sunni Iraqis cannot repel fundamentalist control for long, so why start? Even disrupted oil supplies will not greatly impact a largely energy-independent United States. Looking ever further out, President Obama envisions that the region will at some point reach a benign, or at least externally benign, equilibrium.Perhaps it will, but the fervor of these otherwise debatable views seems conveniently tailored to a preferred course of action. And, so far, not even the most optimistic proponents claim the current course will expel ISIS in less than five years.If the Islamic State governs for years, what cost might America, not just Iraq and its neighbors, incur? If ISIS, only recently dismissed as junior varsity, controls for years the education and activities of hundreds of thousands of young Iraqi, Syrian, and foreign radicals, what might they someday do? Would vicious men within the ISIS circle, or others inspired by them, develop WMD to trade secretly or use surreptitiously against the United States or our allies? What might break loose if IS should then splinter or fail, as we now hope and wistfully predict?Let us assess these risks frankly: We don’t know what may come. We know it is possible that horrible consequences may ensue from any decision.Looking at the deteriorating situation in Eastern Europe in 1938, Winston Churchill predicted, “[D]o not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year….”Do we accept foreseeable consequences, or at least decide that we are unwilling to pay an uncertain price today for the uncertain chance of avoiding them tomorrow? Or might we resolve that the prospect of dreadful losses merits bearing, however distastefully, higher near term risks and costs?Fair or not, if the Middle East stumbles, we may suffer. Those are the unwanted stakes. We should say frankly that we choose to run these risks, and not protest our certainty that the current course is optimized to avoid them. Or we should openly revisit—not preemptively dismiss as unacceptable—the question of whether stronger action might reasonably save more in years to come than is perilously ventured today.