Obama : Syria/NSA = Eisenhower : Dien Bien Phu

January 29, 2014– This is about history, or more precisely what  presidents learn, or think they learn, from history to apply to their current headaches. Many of you will be familiar with the kinds of word associations that college entrance exams delight in confronting us with. Here I want to make an analogy between President Barack Obama’s present approach and one attributed to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, to argue that it is indeed possible to learn wrong things from history.

The episode from the Eisenhower years occurred in 1954. It was a Far Eastern crisis, one in Vietnam. In the last year of the French war there, our ally’s Expeditionary Corps trapped itself into a hopeless battle against a Vietnamese revolutionary army. Paris, aghast at the specter of defeat, appealed to President Eisenhower to save them. “Ike,” as he was familiarly known, was sorely tempted to intervene with air strikes in support of the French. If those did not work, he recognized that he would have to commit American ground troops.

Ultimately President Eisenhower did not intervene at Dien Bien Phu. I mention the crisis because of the similarity between actions Mr. Obama has taken recently to one explanation for Ike’s course in 1954. The conventional wisdom on Dien Bien Phu is that Ike worked with a “hidden hand” deliberately to avoid intervention by insisting that Congress approve the proposed action, safe in the knowledge that it would not do so. I happen to think that explanation is false. As I argue at length in my new e-book, Operation Vulture: America’s Dien Bien Phu, the president worked to further the intervention project far more assiduously than can be accounted for by an explanation which posits that he opposed this course. We shall see how that historical debate fares, but for our purposes in today’s posting it is the supposed historical lesson of the consensus–the desirability of “hidden hand” action–which frames the point.

Last summer and fall an extended debate raged in the United States over whether the U.S. should intervene militarily in Syria to support a popular uprising against the ruler of that land. Much as Mr. Eisenhower, at Dien Bien Phu, had been trapped by policies he had set and promises made to France; President Obama had been caught in his threats to retaliate against the Syrian government if it were found to be using chemical or biological weapons against its people. When evidence emerged the Syrian regime had done exactly that, Mr. Obama was on the hook. His response? Obama insisted that Congress approve the proposed intervention.

Much the same thing happened with regard to the Snowden revelations and the National Security Agency (NSA) scandal. That issue also emerged last summer. Mr. Obama’s first response was to solicit a national debate on the legal, constitutional, and privacy issues involved in the NSA’s eavesdropping. Privately he ordered intelligence agency chiefs to offer options that might make the dragnet more palatable, and appoint a blue ribbon commission to review the practice. Another review was carried out by an independent agency, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (see “Funny Name, Serious Business,” January 23, 2014).

We now know that President Obama approved of this domestic spying all along. As reported by journalist David Remnick in The New Yorker of January 27, Mr. Obama felt no ambivalence about this: “I actually feel confident that the way the NSA operates does not threaten the privacy and constitutional rights of Americans and that the laws that are in place are sound, and, because we’ve got three branches of government involved . . . it actually works pretty well.” Despite Obama’s feelings, last month his blue ribbon commission reported out a study starkly critical of the domestic spying and a federal judge ruled it probably unconstitutional. Three weeks ago the oversight board emerged with an even darker view (see “Independent Agency Study Trashes NSA Claims,” January 24, 2014). Obama’s response? On January 17 he gave a speech accepting the criticisms of the NSA spying, and proposing a number of reforms that he says should be enacted by Congress.

Last night President Obama presented his 2014 State of the Union address. Among its more important features was Mr. Obama’s lambasting of Congress for its inability to act on anything. The president promised to move forward on social issues by means of executive action if Congress will not cooperate. Of course the political gridlock on Capitol Hill has been evident for a long time, since before Mor. Obama took office, and Republican obstructionism became even more strident with him in the White House. Obama’s speech makes perfectly clear his awareness of this factor–and his willingness to proceed unilaterally. Why, then, on two critical issues–Syria intervention and NSA reform–insist that Congress move the ball forward?

One explanation, cynical but not unlikely, is that the president did not want anything to be done on these matters. This certainly concords with Mr. Obama’s expressed view on the NSA spying, and it is a good fit with his need to escape entrapment on his own laying down of “red lines” with the Syrians. Obama has been playing with Dwight Eisenhower’s “hidden hand” deck.

If Barack Obama drew these lessons from history, they are the wrong ones. Let’s go back to Dien Bien Phu, and Vietnam. The hidden hand approach neglects consequences. After Dien Bien Phu these tactics left Eisenhower with no alternative but to support a South Vietnamese government that progressively embroiled the United States in a war. By not addressing policies the tactics put the U.S. on a track from which there was no escape, except by doing the very thing Ike’s supposed course sought to avoid. At the same time, because the hand is hidden a president builds little constituency for his actions. The effect is thus inherently limited. It is distressing that history can offer the wrong lessons and be invoked in support of dubious courses of action.

Korea 1968 Hot Document

January 27, 2014– The Electronic Briefing Book that we posted on the National Security Archive website a few days ago (EBB-453), which dealt with North Korea’s seizure of the U.S. spy ship Pueblo in January 1968 attracted a great deal of attention from South Korean media, fascinated that nuclear weapons might have featured in an American response to the crisis. The actual story is not quite what media mavens have seemed to appreciate: Nuclear weapons were mentioned as part of a planning paper prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in May 1968–some months after the crisis–as part of a contingency plan for what to do if hostilities broke out on the Korean peninsula. So that readers can judge for themselves I am posting the paper here as a “hot document.”

We Miss His Integrity Already

January 22, 2014– It was sad to wake up yesterday to the news of the passing of former New York democratic congressman Otis G. Pike. During the fierce debates of 1975, known as the “Year of Intelligence” because the controversies of the day led to the first significant investigations of the actions of U.S. intelligence agencies, Representative Pike held to a steady course in the face of a concerted effort by the Ford administration–and the CIA, NSA, and FBI of that day–to head off any public inquiry. Like the current controversy ignited by leaks from NSA contract employee Edward Snowden, the Year of Intelligence began with revelations of U.S. intelligence spying on American citizens (see my book The Family Jewels). In contrast to the deferential chiefs of the congressional intelligence committees today–Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representative Mike Rogers–Congressman Pike was in nobody’s pocket and he persevered to the end.

The House of Representatives intelligence investigation of 1975 began under another congressman, Lucien N. Nedzi, who left under fire when it came out that he had collaborated with the CIA–much as current committee chairpersons have with the NSA–in concealing the record of agency abuses embodied in a document that CIA wags of the day had dubbed the “Family Jewels.” The House selected Representative Pike to lead a fresh inquiry. Pike had to start over from square one.

The Pike committee investigation is far less known than the one the Senate conducted under Frank Church. In part that is because his report was suppressed–President Ford lobbied Congress hard to avoid its disclosure, including sending a letter to House members and personally telephoning key figures to nail down votes against releasing the document. But Pike also faced major obstacles. Where the CIA, however reluctantly, permitted Church committee investigators to view some of its materials–ones the Ford White House vetted–its approach with the Pike committee was different. Representative Pike refused to accept the procedures the White House and CIA had designed to limit access for the investigators. The agency countered by refusing to supply Pike with any materials at all, on the excuse his committee could not protect classified information. There was more. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger refused to appear when called to testify, and resisted a subpoena once the House voted that. Some accommodations were made, but executive-legislative cooperation in the case of the Pike investigation would be minimal. And then President Ford intervened to suppress the Pike report. Portions of it promptly leaked. Although the public has never seen the complete report, it is clear from the leaked material that Congressman Pike, despite having half the time the Church committee enjoyed (insufficient in their case too, by the way), and in the face of executive branch obstruction of its inquiry, succeeded in getting to the bottom of several key intelligence questions. Otis Pike’s leadership–and his integrity in resisting White House and CIA maneuvers to affect information–were keys to this achievement.

Congress today would benefit from integrity like Otis Pike’s. The present  intelligence committees seem intent on avoiding issues, not engaging them. Not only is this apparent in their diffident approach to the NSA scandal, it is visible in the Senate committee’s failure to call out the CIA on its effort to stonewall the deep inquiry which the committee majority spent several years assembling on the CIA rendition and torture programs. Otis Pike (1921-2014) would not have let the spooks get away with such shenanigans.

Boardgaming in the News

January 11, 2014–There’s a lot on my plate today, so just a short note.  Very occasionally the mainstream media features coverage of boardgames. This weekend is one such instance. Just so you’re aware, tomorrow’s Washington Post Magazine contains the article “War in A Box” by Jason Albert. The piece is a nice profile of Volko Ruhnke, an analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency by trade, but a budding game designer with five titles under his belt. Ruhnke’s work puts a sophisticated simulation model around such subjects as the war in Afghanistan. He’s currently working on a Vietnam war game with co-designer Mark Herman, who some years ago brought us the very intricate Vietnam 1965-1975. The article also contains a bit on the World Boardgame Championships show. If you’re a gamer you’ll be interested to see this essay. 

PANZERKRIEG Returns!

January 4, 2014–It’s always great to see an old friend. Today it’s Panzerkrieg, a game I designed back in the mid-70s, known by its present name since 1978, when Operational Studies Group put out my full edition. Last year the Japanese publisher Six Angles approached me with the suggestion that we collaborate on a fresh version of this classic boardgame. I agreed. The result arrived with yesterday’s mail so that I can now affirm that the new Panzerkrieg is out, and available. It’s listed that way on the “Games” section of the website, with a link to Six Angles.

Those of you familiar with the game will want to know what we have so here goes. The new edition features a re-drawn four-color mapboard that is quite attractive. The terrain feel is better because of the move from three- to four-color, the substitution of symbols for the colored river-crossing hexes in the old edition, and the replacement of the old yellow scenario start-lines with updated symbols.  Panzerkrieg’s former study folder has been replaced by scenario cards. All eight original scenarios are included, and there is a new introductory scenario, “The Manstein Alternative.”

The counter art is spectacular. Masahiro Yamazaki of Six Angles has reworked the pieces (500 on two-and-a-half sheets). Leaders have portraits. There are new color distinctions between mobile units (armor and mechanized) and infantry on both sides, nicely done air units, Minor Allies with their own flavor, and more.

Rules will be familiar, though here, too, we have adapted some elements of more recent editions of the game. These include the ability to group mobile units into panzer corps or tank armies, setting of “Objectives,” specialized anti-tank units, and more. The classic elements of the design, with its Stalemates and Breakthroughs, the Bridgeheads across major rivers, the use of Reserves and of Leaders, plus airpower, remain the same. Six Angles published the game in Japanese translation but an English version of the rules, tables, and charts will become available in the next few weeks.

I will be posting Designer’s Notes for the game as an item on the “Downloadable” section of the site. I’m also considering working up a new scenario as additional value added. Masahiro did a fine job. Panzerkrieg is back. Welcome old friend!