Social-ist Media (March 15, 2024)
Welcome to Home & Away. It has been another busy week, with Kate-gate, both Biden and Trump locking up their respective party nominations, a Trump-engineered housecleaning and family takeover of the Republican National Committee, a resignation from a Republican congressman that further reduces the party’s already narrow House majority, and another special counsel acting in ways that makes you wonder how he ever got the job. All that said, I will focus on other things.
Threats-R-Us
I want to start with the annual threat assessment released by the intelligence community, or IC, as it is known to the other IC (inside crowd). There is no shortage of threats, actual and potential, to write about: Russia, Iran and its many proxies, China, North Korea, terrorists, failing states, climate change, nuclear proliferation, viruses of the physical and digital variety, migration, organized crime, and human trafficking all merit attention.
The report summarized things this way: “The United States faces an increasingly fragile global order strained by accelerating strategic competition among major powers, more intense and unpredictable transnational challenges, and multiple regional conflicts with far-reaching implications. An ambitious but anxious China, a confrontational Russia, some regional powers, such as Iran, and more capable non-state actors are challenging longstanding rules of the international system as well as U.S. primacy within it. Simultaneously, new technologies, fragilities in the public health sector, and environmental changes are more frequent, often have global impact and are harder to forecast.” So much for the end of history.
The report is written by the intelligence community, which means it is not allowed to survey or assess anything domestic. All of which is to say it leaves out what might be the greatest threat to U.S. national security: ourselves. Or somewhat more specifically, the political polarization that has made it difficult, and all too often impossible, for us to meet those aforementioned international threats.
The most glaring current example is the Republican-controlled House of Representatives’ refusal to provide additional military support for Ukraine. While Ukraine’s highly-anticipated counteroffensive was unable to achieve a major breakthrough on the battlefield, with U.S. and European assistance Ukraine has been able to largely keep Russia at bay and halt its attempt to seize a vast portion of the country or, worse yet, end Ukraine’s independent status. With U.S. assistance largely cut off—the $300 million in arms and ammunition the Pentagon just cobbled together for Ukraine is about one-half of one percent of what was in the bill currently stuck in the House—the tide on the battlefield is now turning.
Don’t take my word for it. The same report mentioned above judged that the current battlefield situation, after two years of intense fighting, is shifting in Moscow’s favor: “Russia’s defense industry is significantly ramping up production of a panoply of long-range strike weapons, artillery munitions, and other capabilities that will allow it to sustain a long high-intensity war if necessary. Meanwhile, Moscow has made continual incremental battlefield gains since late 2023, and is benefitting from uncertainties about the future of Western military assistance.”
I will say what the IC cannot: The United States is pulling the rug out from under Ukraine. And it is doing so for domestic political reasons, not for serious, much less sound, reasons of foreign policy. Indeed, defeating Russian aggression, degrading its military so it cannot launch another war in Europe, and helping Ukraine defend its sovereign territory should be something that has broad support across party lines. The fact that it does not is a true scandal. Unfortunately, this is a rare foreign policy matter where the hands of the executive are tied by the Congress. All President Biden can do is what he did in his State of the Union address and pound away at the Speaker of the House and his fellow Republicans. Ideally, the political tide here will gradually turn in favor of further assisting Ukraine before the battlefield tide turns, potentially decisively, in Russia’s favor. If not, this could well become one of those turning points altering the trajectory of history.
One additional point here. Halting aid to Ukraine is sometimes justified by those arguing that the United States needs to make difficult trade-offs and prioritize preparing for a conflict with China over Taiwan. Put aside the easy counterarguments that the current legislation also contained military aid for Taiwan and that the United States can, and should, help both. The real point is that our support for Ukraine over the past few years has made war with China over Taiwan less, not more, likely, as it demonstrated to Chinese leaders the West’s willingness to back its friends, the reach of economic sanctions, and the risk that China would be taking if it were to call on its untested military to conduct a highly complex operation to seize Taiwan. Abandoning Ukraine would teach China and Taiwan the lesson that the West cannot be trusted for the long haul and consequently increase the odds that, one way or another, Taiwan would come under China’s sway. If Russia defeats Ukraine, it would be a terrible day for Taiwan and further destabilize the Taiwan Strait.
Red Lines Redux
For the past five-plus months, it has been nearly impossible to write this weekly newsletter without some reference to the Middle East. This week, alas, is no exception. There are several story lines worth mentioning. One is the failure to negotiate a new six-week pause in the fighting between Israel and Hamas before Ramadan. The responsibility here lies overwhelmingly with Hamas and Iran, which seek to continue to exploit the hostage crisis and goad Israel into taking further military action during Ramadan that could decisively turn Arab populations and those governments that have made peace with Israel against it. Just this week, an Israeli gas producer revealed that the United Arab Emirates, one of the original Abraham Accords signatories, has suspended its planned investment in the company citing the ongoing war.
It has also been a week of heightened clashes between President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu. President Biden made news last weekend when he suggested that Israel would cross some red line if it launched an offensive in the southern Gazan city of Rafah without safely evacuating the more than one million Gazan civilians crowded together there. Netanyahu countered that his red line was that October 7 doesn’t happen again.
I am not a big fan of red lines. While they ostensibly seem like a good idea as both a statement and deterrent, they quickly prove to be anything but if they are crossed and you are not prepared to enforce your red line. It was precisely this that constituted one of the low points of Obama’s foreign policy, when the United States did next to nothing after Syria ignored Obama’s warning not to use chemical weapons.
It is not quite clear what the Biden administration is prepared to do if Israel goes ahead with an offensive in Rafah, which Netanyahu has promised in spite of Biden’s threat. I would anticipate, though, that the United States might be prepared to condemn Israel in the UN Security Council, condition the use of U.S.-provided arms, or both. Making matters more complicated is the question of what actually would constitute an Israeli offensive in Rafah. One can imagine a range of military operations. And making it even more complicated is the possibility that while whatever is going on in Gaza goes on, there could be an outbreak of serious fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in the north, a development that would justify Washington sending arms to Israel despite these serious disagreements over Gaza.
Then yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called Bibi Netanyahu “an obstacle to peace” and encouraged early elections in Israel. I see this as a meaningful development, one that Israel ignores at its peril. When Israel alienates a stalwart lifetime friend, it is time for it to reflect on how this came to pass and what needs doing to mend matters. Israel needs the United States in its corner, and this relationship will not come close to being what Israel needs if it no longer enjoys broad bipartisan and intergenerational backing. Which it no longer does given progressives’ and Republican isolationists’ growing concerns over U.S. support for Israel.
The Middle East, and the situation in Gaza more specifically, is also the subject of my latest article, which is the cover essay in the Review section of this weekend’s Wall Street Journal. As I wrote, Israel had great latitude when it came to how it would respond to the horrific October 7 attacks—but almost all of its choices have been costly for itself, its relationship with the United States, and Palestinians. The essay suggests what Israel could and should have done: shown some patience before responding, employed military force in a more measured fashion, strengthened its defenses, and, above all, introduced a political track to address Palestinian aspirations. I also suggest what Israel should do going forward. Fateful, even historic, choices confront Israel, and I cannot say I am confident it will choose wisely. Big decisions also await the United States, especially if Israel continues to embrace policies that work against American interests in the region and beyond.
The Tick Tock on TikTok
The last thing I want to discuss is TikTok. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill Wednesday that would require the app’s Chinese owner (ByteDance) to sell its operations in this country to a non-Chinese owner in the next six months, lest the app be banned on American devices. Motivating this push are concerns that TikTok could provide the Chinese government with access to its U.S. users’ data and, more importantly, that the app’s algorithms could be manipulated to promote the views and interests of China. Some, for instance, have argued that TikTok has disproportionately promoted narratives critical of Israel, and the United States’ support for it, following October 7 (consistent with China’s view on the crisis) and fear how the platform could be used to sway public opinion in the United States during a conflict over Taiwan or a U.S. election.
The Economist, a magazine known for its pro-market views, weighed in on this issue this week, with a headline declaring “Time for TikTok to cut its ties to China.” The magazine (which does not have bylines) wrote, “Most countries already have laws restricting foreign ownership of old media, such as television and the press (ask Rupert Murdoch, who became a proud American citizen shortly before taking over Fox News)…A Chinese company would not be allowed to buy CNN. Yet TikTok is fast becoming more influential. It is time for governments to apply the same logic to new media as they do to old. If anything, the new platforms require greater vigilance, since their output is so opaque.”
I tend to agree with this sentiment and would add one further consideration: reciprocity. American social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter are banned in China. If that market is closed to U.S. offerings, why should TikTok have an open door here?
The question, then, is what to do? I’m prepared to argue that any number of American-owned social media sites regularly promote content that is bad for this country, but I am not sure the answer is to be found in regulating ownership. This sets a dangerous precedent for some illiberal president or Congress that might want to curtail the independence of some site for political reasons.
It is also difficult not to note the irony here. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 essentially frees the owners of internet platforms from responsibility for what goes on their sites. Now Congress (or at least the House) is making an exception for China, which will reinforce the perception there that this country is engaged in economic warfare against it and is determined to prevent Chinese companies from becoming global leaders.
Let me close with a larger point. In a democracy, as Thomas Jefferson made a habit of pointing out, there is no substitute for an informed citizenry. So rather than looking to government to solve the problem of TikTok or any other site or app, we might better train our focus on making citizens more discerning. Information literacy should be taught to all of our children, ideally as part of a larger effort devoted to teaching civics. Parents might want to think twice before they allow their kids to download TikTok or some other app on their phone. And, as they get a bit older, individuals should self-regulate by not going to TikTok, or Meta, or X for news or authoritative information. Remember: it’s called SOCIAL media for a reason. It’s social. It can be fun. But it is not serious media, or news-filled, or fact-checked media. Maybe we need a warning label on social media much the way we have one with tobacco products.
As always, some links to click on. And feel free to share Home & Away.
Richard Haass in the news
Friday, March 8: MSNBC Morning Joe on President Biden’s State of the Union address (audio-only; 33:07)
Upcoming: Monday, March 18 at 11:00 a.m. (ET): Foreign Policy Live on Foreign Policy in an Election Year
Article
The War That Israel Could Have Fought (Wall Street Journal)
Check out The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens