The COVID-19 Predictions

April 17, 2020 By Gene Veith

Just over two weeks ago on April 2, we had a post at this blog entitled Get Ready for a “Hell of a Bad Two Weeks.” President Trump and his coronavirus task group had said two days earlier that Americans should brace themselves for 100,000 to 240,000 deaths even if everyone followed the shut-down rules. The next two or three weeks, those that have just passed, were going to be the “roughest,” he said. The experts projected that today when I am writing this, April 16, would be the peak of the epidemic, with the most deaths, after which we would see a gradual but still deadly decline.

Our practice here at the Cranach blog, as readers of our New Year’s editions know, is to make predictions but then check them. So I put the date on my calendar and planned to blog about it one way or the other. Some of those dire predictions did take place. Others, including the larger projections based on computer modeling, did not.

First, what proved true: It was, as President Trump said it would be, if you would excuse the profanity, a “hell of a bad two weeks.” At that briefing, the death toll in the U.S. from the epidemic was 3,500 Americans. As of today, in only two and a half weeks, it is nearly ten times that number: 33,405.

At that briefing two and a half weeks ago, it was predicted that on April 16, the rate of deaths per day would be 2,607. That was not too far wrong. As reported by Reuters, on Wednesday, April 15, a record 2,371 died.

UPDATE: The numbers for April 16 have come in and they were a surprising and shocking 4,591! That’s almost double the number from the day before. The modeling correctly picked April 16 as the peak day (unless the numbers keep going up), but this time it underestimated the number of deaths.

Overall, though, the computer modeling for the total number of deaths emphasized at that briefing was wrong. Of course, we won’t know the total number of deaths until the epidemic is over, but the modelers themselves have been revising their predictions ever downwards.

When the epidemic first came into our national awareness, experts were predicting that if nothing was done, the number of Americans who would die, according to this story from March 17, would reach 2.2 million. If the country took strong action, we might get lucky and only one million would die.

This got our attention. The shut-down orders went into effect.

By the end of March, social distancing and sheltering in place had become the norm. The predictions reported at the briefing were much-improved, but still frighteningly high: 100,000-240,000. These numbers assumed that Americans would be following the new protocols.

But even then, as I reported in my post, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) was predicting a somewhat lower number: 93,765 deaths. This would be the total by August 1, after which time, the epidemic, according to the model, would be over.

Here is the very useful IHME site, which graphs a great deal of data, enabling users to see the extent to which we have “flattened the curve.” Today the total deaths are estimated to be, by the 4th of August, 68,841.

UPDATE: The IHME has revised the estimate downward again, to 60,308.

That would be slightly more than twice as many as have died so far, at the “peak” of the epidemic. If that means we are half-way through it, then the numbers of the falling curve might be expected to equal that of the rising curve, so that might be reasonable, but we don’t really know how sharp the drop-off in infections might be.

So the models and expert predictions have been off dramatically. That the number of deaths is lower than predicted, defenders of the models say, is evidence that the draconian shut-down of American society has been working. But those models took that shut-down into account. At the very least, the models failed to calculate correctly what the effect of that shut-down would be.

The problem is in the nature of computer modeling, which only extrapolates current data into the future. But there are so many unknown variables that our knowledge is never going to be complete. This is certainly true of our knowledge about the COVID-19 epidemic, as the scientists researching it would be the first to tell you.

The data itself is uncertain. We don’t really know how many people have been infected with the virus, due to the difficulties in getting people tested and to the fact that many of the infected have no (or hardly noticeable) symptoms. Nor do we really know how many people have died from it, since states are using different criteria for reporting COVID-19 deaths, the effects of the virus may be long-lasting and are not always distinguishable from other causes. Thus, the researchers are always revising their models as they get more data. We have to use these tools, but their conclusions are not as certain as the graphs and the statistics make them seem.

Here is another prediction that proved wrong: Back on March 16, I wrote in a post that the isolation of our small rural community in Oklahoma “naturally creates a state of protective quarantine.” Was I ever wrong! For several weeks, our county ranked 4th in the state in the number of confirmed coronavirus, just behind the three biggest cities.

One bit of good news: The latest IMHE model projects that the daily death count will decline to zero on June 27. [UPDATE: Now June 17.]

Then again, that model may be wrong.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Premium Content

Bailing Out Everybody

April 7, 2020 By Gene Veith

0 Comments

In an effort to stop the coronavirus epidemic, the government pushed “pause” on much of the American economy, then put up $2.2 trillion to sustain American workers and businesses until it can hit “play” again. But what will this mean?

Two weeks ago, President Trump signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Acts (CARES) Act, which was approved unanimously in the Republican-controlled Senate and by voice vote with only one recorded dissenter in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives. Now that it’s April, the measures are going into effect.

The law is breathtaking in its scope and largesse. We will all, pretty much, be getting $1,200 cash, with $500 for each child. There is money for everyone–big businesses, small businesses, workers, the unemployed–in an effort to bail out everybody. Here is a good survey, with information about how to access each program.

The government, for example, is promising to cover the payroll for businesses hurt by the epidemic so that they do not have to lay off workers, even though they can no longer work. Small businesses can get a loan from a bank to cover 2.5 times the total payroll and the loan does not have to be payed back. (We’ll discuss this program, for which churches are also eligible, tomorrow.)

The federal government will also subsidize what the states pay for unemployment benefits, typically half the person’s salary, plus add on $600 per week. Some lawmakers thought that must have been a drafting error, since it would mean that many people would be making more on unemployment than they would working. But that’s not a bug but a feature: This would give the unemployed an incentive to stay at home, out of the workforce, which is what we need in a quarantine.

I am not disputing whether or not this bailout is necessary, though feel free to debate that issue in the comments. If the government forbids businesses from operating and prevents employees from going to work, it seems just for the government to make up for the financial loss that it imposed.

What I’m trying to get my mind around are the implications of a government intervention into the economy on this scale.

The entire federal budget, as proposed by President Trump for the 2021 fiscal year–not including any of these expenses, of course, is $4.829 trillion, with the expectation of $3.863 trillion in revenue. That means a deficit for that year of about $1 trillion. The national debt is some $25.3 trillion. The entire Gross Domestic Product for the United States in 2019 was $21.73 trillion.

So perhaps $2 trillion, even though it adds half again as much to the federal budget and increases the yearly deficit threefold, is chicken feed, less than a 10% addition to the national debt. Still, it makes sense to ask, how are we going to pay for all of this?

And what are the political and ideological implications of this bailout? Every single Republican, conservative, libertarian, fiscal hawk in the Senate voted “aye” for this bill. Have they abandoned their small-government, fiscally-prudent principles?

The Left is exhilarated by this kind of spending. I saw multiple headlines on the theme “The Era of Small Government Is Over.” And crowing over the prospect that fiscal conservatism is dead. Never mind that we have not had “small government” for a long time, and that purposefully inducing a coma in the economy and trying to keep it on life support until it can be revived (I came across that metaphor somewhere) is not the same as ongoing government control. But the bailout mindset, which exists in both parties, may shape what people think is possible and have political consequences.

The Democratic Socialist Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. commented that Republicans have always put the kibosh on proposals such as Medicare for All and the Green New Deal by asking, “how are you going to pay for it?” But now, after the CARE Act passed, she said, that question is off the table. “It’s a fascinating progressive moment because what it’s shown is that all of these issues have never been about ‘how are you going to pay for it?,” but “about a lack of political will and who you deemed worthy to be in an emergency or not.”

Bernie Sanders says that his Medicare for All plan would cost between $3 and $4 trillion per year. The Green New Deal is estimated to cost between $5.2 and $9.3 trillion per year. These would dwarf the piddling $2 trillion for the bailout, which is designed to just last for a few months.

This all seems to be an exercise in Modern Monetary Theory, the notion that governments can create money by fiat. Thus, deficits don’t matter. If that theory is true, why shouldn’t the government implement whatever policies it wants, regardless of the cost? Then again, we might wonder, if that theory is true, why does the government need to tax us? But if everything works out nicely with the bailout, we might be facing a new era of not only big government but mega-government, confident that it can control the whole economy and operate without constraints.

If that theory proves not to be true, but free market economic theory is valid after all, we can expect big problems. Even in the short term, if lots of money is put into the pockets of Americans during the coronavirus, what good will that do, if production is dropping due to all of the closures? What will there be for Americans to buy with all of their money? And if the supply goes down, but demand is strong, won’t that drive up prices, causing inflation? And if price gouging laws that go into effect during states of emergency prevent higher prices, won’t the low supply and strong demand mean shortages of goods?

We’ll have to see what happens.

Am I too worried? I would gladly be wrong. Are there other possible scenarios that I am missing?

Maybe the bailout will function as advertised and after the epidemic fades away the private-sector economy will return to its previous growth and dynamism, whose higher revenues will generate more tax-revenue to cover the deficits.

Let’s hope the viral epidemic will not be followed by a government epidemic.

TOMORROW: What the CARES Act means for the Church.

Image by geralt, public domain, via Needpix.com

Premium Content

How Science Supports Classical Design

March 4, 2020 By Gene Veith

0 Comments

President Trump is considering an executive order requiring that new federal buildings–post offices, agency buildings, government offices, and other public structures–be constructed in traditional and classical designs, as opposed to the designs of modernist and post-modernist architecture.

The draft order, entitled “Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again,” is worth reading. It gives a good survey of public building designs, from emulating the classical forms of the Greek democracies and the Roman republic to the more recent vogue of “brutalism” (“characterized by a massive, monolithic, stark, and block-like appearance with a rigid geometric style and large-scale use of poured concrete”) and “deconstructivism” (“which subverts the traditional values of architecture via fragmentation, disorder, discontinuity, distortion, skewed geometry, and the appearance of instability”).

Predictably the proposed executive order–which has not been approved by the president but is only under consideration–has provoked outrage from the architectural establishment, the contemporary art world, and our cultural masters.

But mathematics professor and architectural theorist Nikos Salingaros points out that a substantial body of scientific research has found that the elements of classical design–such as symmetry, harmony, proportion, and order–contribute to a sense of well-being for the people seeing or inhabiting those buildings. Whereas the newer design elements–such as asymmetry, clashing forms, distortion, and disorientation–create the sense of a “hostile environment.”

From Nikos Salingaros, If Science Truly Won, The Era Of Modernist Architecture Would Be Over:

Healing environments have particular features, such as hierarchical subdivisions. To illustrate this concept, let’s imagine a 19th-century room. Structural subdivisions of the interior, for example, include window frames, window mullions, wide doorframes, paneled doors, floor baseboards, generous trim and cornice moldings, etc. Divisions are all coherently balanced with each other, defining symmetries that our brain recognizes.

Nothing is misaligned, and care is taken that we see continuity and mirror symmetries. This is important, otherwise asymmetry alarms our brain and creates stress. Divisions of large-scale forms make tectonic sense and are neither arbitrary nor superficial.

Moreover, the material divisions continue into the smaller scales, going down to the complex, organized texture. At this smallest scale, ornament and natural texture invite our touch, which is an essential component of soothing architecture.

Contrast this welcoming aspect of traditional (and new adaptive) architecture with the willful Modernist substitution of either cold, smooth glass panes, polished metal, or harsh brutalist concrete that scrapes your skin if you inadvertently rub against it. This sadistic treatment of users is part of architecture school indoctrination as the “honest treatment of materials” — just one of the fallacious slogans that turned architecture into such an inhuman experience. . . .

People instinctively sought to build an environment they felt comfortable in, rather than a source of anxiety. . . .

Religious traditions emphasized seeking a higher order of coherent structure as a joint practical/spiritual ideal, and rejecting disorder, misalignment, and any other geometrical features that made us feel anxious. . . .

The historical reversal of design properties from healing environments to cold, hostile ones is not accidental. It came about as the deliberate break with the past. For almost a century, our society has misinterpreted that rupture as an aesthetic advance.

To give you an idea about what Prof. Salingaros and the draft Executive Order are referring to, consider the F.B.I. headquarters in Washington, D.C., the J. Edgar Hoover Building:

No ornamentation, little symmetry, no concern for beauty–just poured concrete–but the building is massive and inhuman. This is “brutalism.” It expresses a kind of totalitarianism, a colossal hard-edged government that can overwhelm and crush the individual citizen.

The J. Edgar Hoover Building is located at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue. Just a few blocks away and across the street is this building:

Whatever your opinion of the person who lives here at any given time, the building is pleasant to look upon. It is symmetrical, harmonious, and beautiful. It has a human scale and is resonant with historical meaning. Presidents come and go, but this is, as is often said, “the people’s house.”

Classical aesthetics–whether of architecture, art, music, or literature; not just Greco-Roman styles but also medieval, baroque, romantic, formalist, etc.–always makes reference to “nature.” Not in the sense necessarily of trees, mountains, and wildlife, but of the objective universe, of reality. That includes mathematical order and human “nature.”

This is why good teachers, for example, will tend to follow the principles of classical education–teaching content (grammar), understanding (logic), and creative application (rhetoric)–even if they have never heard of the trivium or “classical education.” This is simply what education, according to its nature, “is.”

Photo credits: U.S. Capitol, cc0-icon CC0 Public Domain, via PXhere. J. Edgar Hoover Building by Brunswyk / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) via Wikimedia Commons. White House by AgnosticPreachersKid / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) via Wikimedia Commons.

Premium Content

Life as Unrelated Fragments Edited Together

January 22, 2020 By Gene Veith

0 Comments

The movie 1917 is being hailed as one of the best war movies of all time. Nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, the film follows two young soldiers during World War I as they try to get a message through to front line troops warning them of an ambush.

Among its distinctive features, the movie appears as if it were photographed in one continuous shot. The effect is to immerse the audience into the story, following the two soldiers through all of the shooting and explosions, seeing what they see and being with them every step of the way. This technique, a cinematic version of the classical dramatic unities, has the effect of extreme realism and narrative intensity. Alfred Hitchcock shot his philosophical suspense thriller Rope using this method, as have a few other directors, such as Alejandro Inarritu in Birdman. In reality, the director of 1917 Sam Mendes (as well as Hitchcock and Inarritu) did use multiple shots, but they worked them together so that the viewer never notices them.

To have a single shot that appears to last for two hours is a stark contrast with most of today’s movies–especially other action movies–which tend to feature rapid-fire editing, with extremely short shots edited together to create the effect of frenetic action.

I came across a refreshingly honest movie critic who, while praising 1917, admitted that he no longer had the attention span for a movie like that. During the long shot, his attention kept jumping elsewhere–to the decorative lights in the theater, to hushed conversations in the audience, to people coming in late, and to other distractions. His head started hurting.

He realized that he had becoming conditioned to short-cut movie editing. More seriously, he had been conditioned by the internet, his phone, and the multi-tasking and multi-stimulations that make up most of our days, to the point that his whole life was fragmented into short, unrelated experiences. His whole life, he concluded, was edited.

From Tim Molloy at MovieMaker, Watching 1917 in 2020, When Our Lives Are More Edited Than Ever:

It was hard for me to sit and watch a single, unbroken shot. I’m 44. I grew up on fast-cut videos on MTV, and now I spend hours every day on a phone that flashes tweets and text messages and calendar invites. No one forced this on me. As with any addiction, I started off liking these things, but then ended up needing them to function, and now derive no pleasure from them whatsoever.

Movies are my usual distraction from these distractions. There’s almost no other time when I spend two waking hours disconnected from my phone. I should go for my hikes, I know.

It isn’t lost on me how pathetic it is that my main distraction from my tiny screen is a bigger screen. But with 1917, I was filled with unease, because the big screen wasn’t distracting enough. . . .

Iñárritu told Variety in 2014 that he wanted Birdman to appear as one long, continuous sequence because “we live our lives with no editing.”

But that’s only kind of true. We edit constantly now, using a phone screen as our de facto field of vision. We cut from the great Hitchcock biography we’re reading on Kindle to the Wikipedia page for someone casually mentioned in the book to Twitter—since we’ve left Kindle, now, anyway, time for a break—to the trailer for Black Widow, which someone just tweeted, back to Wikipedia to try to understand who David Harbour is playing, until our friend texts us an article about an acquaintance who seems to be doing well, to Zillow, to try to figure out how much that friend’s new house is worth. Okay: Maybe you’ve bailed out on the “we” at this point. . . .

I think 1917 will be divisive, because even in the half-decade since Birdman, our lives have become more edited. More than ever, we choose who we read and what we watch. We aren’t subject to the whims of three television networks and our local theater owner and newspaper publisher.

Dedicating our eyes to one thing, for two hours, requires a surrender we’re no longer accustomed to making.

What does this fragmented-editing sensibility do to thinking? To reading? To relationships? To mental stability? To politics? To one’s spiritual life?

I would suggest that watching movies like 1917, reading long books, and taking on long-term tasks that demand focused attention (wood-working, making models, writing, raising children) can help cure this malady. If we can handle things like that.

Image by Dyversions from Pixabay

Premium Content

The Managerial Elite

January 13, 2020 By Gene Veith

0 Comments

Our new class system is not based on the socio-economic hierarchies of upper, middle, and lower classes; nor do our class struggles follow the socialist analysis of property-owners vs. the working class. Rather, our new class conflict is between the working class and the “managerial elite.”

So says University of Texas professor Michael Lind, who sees the conflict between the college-educated managerial class and the non-college-educated majority looming behind our political polarization, not only in the United States but in other Western democracies, where populist blue-collar workers–who tend to be patriotic, religious, and critical of immigration–are contending against the white-collar cosmopolitans who run the companies they work for, the cultural institutions that try to control how they think, and the government bureaucracies that rule their lives.

This class conflict, Lind says, has given us the Donald Trump presidency, with both his populist supporters and the furious “resistance” from the managerial class, but it has also manifested itself in the Brexit movement in the United Kingdom, the “yellow vest” insurgents in France, and related movements throughout Europe.

Now there have been other analyses of the conflicts between “populists” and “elitists,” often with a partisan spin. But Lind strikes me as much more rigorous than other analysts in connecting these political and cultural factions to class divisions.

Lind develops his observations in his book The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite, which will be released later this month. He summarizes his thesis in an article published in the Wall Street Journal entitled Saving Democracy From the Managerial Elite. This article is available through subscription only, so let me just give you some highlights:

The deepest cleavage in Western democracies yawns between college-educated managers and professionals—a third of the population, at most—and the majority who lack college educations. . . .

The major geographic divide in Western democracies is not between urban and rural areas but between expensive hubs or urban cores where professionals and immigrant service workers cluster, on the one hand, and exurbs and satellite towns on the peripheries of metro areas, where most working class people find jobs and low-cost housing. . . .

Between 2010 and 2018, whites with a college degree fell from 40% to 29% of Republican voters; Democrats now win an overwhelming share of the country’s most highly educated counties. . . .

These classes are following their class interests:

Unwilling to admit that the center-left has been largely captured by the managerial elite, many pundits and academics on the left insist that mindless bigotry, rather than class interests, explains the attraction of many working-class voters to populist parties that promise to restrict trade and immigration. But it is just as rational for workers to prefer a seller’s market in labor as it is for employers to prefer a buyer’s market in labor. Blue-collar workers who have abandoned center-left parties for populist movements bring with them the historic suspicion of large-scale immigration that was typical of organized labor for generations.

What once were different subcultures of the highly-educated class–academics, corporate managers, politicians–have now come together, Lind says, into a true ruling class.

What we might call “woke capitalism” represents a fusion of the three elites at the commanding heights of the economy, the culture and politics; they increasingly constitute a single conformist caste.

This newly consolidated ruling class is best described as “liberaltarian,” combining moderately libertarian views in economics with cultural progressivism in values. From its citadels in a few big cities, this oligarchy periodically notifies the working-class majority what values and opinions about sex, immigration and other topics it must immediately adopt without debate, on pain of being blacklisted by the private sector, prosecuted by the government or censored or erased by the media.

Recall that the managerial elite constitutes only about one-third of the population. In many ways, they rule the majority, but the majority has the potential of out-voting them. As a result, says Lind, the managerial elite favors government by bureaucracy (as in the regulations of the U.S. Executive Branch or the European Union in Brussels), the judicial system (whose members will tend to belong to their class), transnational agreements (global trade agreements, the EU, the UN, treaties having priority over local jurisdictions).

The most democratic and responsive branch of the government is the legislature, which has been stripped of its power, its centrality, and its reputation over the last few generations. Local and state governments too, which are by their nature closer to voters, have also lost clout.

Ordinary voters, says Lind, have lost other “tribunes,” the term coming from the Roman official whose sole duty was to protect the interests of the common people. Labor unions, political machines, and–significantly–the church would play this role, but now they have all lost influence. But people still rally to those they perceive as political “tribunes,” such as Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, even though they too come from the elite.

Lind calls for the creation of “powerful legislatures” on the local, state, and national level, to empower working-class citizens. He concludes:

Ending the new class war in the U.S. and Europe will require a new era of genuine power-sharing by today’s power-hoarding managerial overclass. The trade unions, powerful religious organizations and local political machines of the 20th century will not return. Their 21st-century equivalents are needed, in the form of mass membership organizations accountable to working-class people rather than to elite donors or granters. Only genuine bottom-up institutions can allow working-class citizens to exercise countervailing power against the elite by pooling the only resource they have: their numbers.

I would like to ask Prof. Lind some questions. If the managerial elite is such an oligarchy, a mere 33% aligned against the American majority, why did tribune of the people Donald Trump lose the popular vote? Clearly, quite a few blue collar folks voted against him, including, of course, the black working class. Where does “identity politics” fit into this class-based analysis?

Ironically, today both parties are claiming, at least in their rhetoric, to champion the cause of the working class and to oppose big corporations. Is there still the pull of the old class struggle of “the rich” against “the poor” in at least some voters? I suppose the “managers” tend to be middle-income, rather than rich, so they can oppose the wealthy owners and stockholders of the companies they work for, even though the even smaller number of those who are “rich” may themselves be of the managerial class in their background and values.

Clearly, this alleged class struggle is not just a matter of the dominant political parties, neither of which is homogenous in any way. Manager-types and the college educated populate both parties, as do blue collar workers. Indeed, the former used to be associated with the Republicans, and the latter used to be associated with the Democrats. Perhaps, though, Prof. Lind’s thesis could still be applied within the parties, with the “managerial elite” constituting the Republican “establishment” that Trumpian Republicans are always complaining about, with the Democratic working class base resisting the harder left pull of Democratic managerial activists.

Also, of course, quite a few college-educated folks reject the values of the managerial elite, as Lind describes them, despite their own membership in this class, just as quite a few members of the working class go along with them.

I don’t think class analysis can account for everything, but it can account for some things. And Prof. Lind has made some helpful contributions to this approach.

Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay

Premium Content

The Grim Reaper

January 6, 2020 By Gene Veith

0 Comments

When most Americans think of technology, they think of the internet, and drones are ways to get their online purchases faster. But our technology as applied by the military is staggering in its lethality and its reach.

On Friday, a drone with a 66′ wingspan known as the Reaper hovered over Baghdad. It was being flown by pilots on the ground in either an airbase in Nevada (if this was an Air Force operation) or in an office building in Langley, Virginia (if this was a CIA operation). At President Trump’s command, the Reaper fired two laser-guided Hellfire missiles into the automobile of the Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, who was reportedly “shredded” in the blast. It also may have ignited another war in the Middle East–this time between the United States and Iran. Or, as I think, it may prove to be the catalyst for our final withdrawal from that region once and for all.

We have been using the Reaper against terrorists, such as leaders of ISIS, with little negative consequence. A terrorist, though, is a lawless individual, a stateless criminal who represents only himself and his twisted cause. It’s another thing to use the Reaper against a military officer in the chain of command of a sovereign nation. This is true even if the terrorist and the military officer have been doing the same things.

Soleimani, head of the elite Quds corps in the Revolutionary Guard–“Quds” being the Islamic term for Jerusalem, which shows the force’s ultimate goal–had been organizing Iranian-backed militias all around the world. These have become a force in Iraq, threatening American and allied forces there and undermining the attempts to build a stable Iraqi government. One of these militias recently killed an American contractor, which led to an American attack on an Iranian installation in Iraq, which led to the pro-Iranian mob that attacked the American embassy, which, under international law, is American sovereign territory. Soleimani was likely behind all of those attacks–as well as recent assaults on ocean vessels and Saudi oil operations–and was planning more. So, in a final level of retaliation, the grim Reaper was called for Soleimani.

The question is not whether or not he deserved it. He surely did. But Soleimani was the representative of an entire nation and was acting on its behalf. Despite our decades-long conflicts with Iran, we are not in a formal state of war with Iran. That may change, if Iran declares war on us, and though commanders-in-chief have a great deal of latitude in what they may do to defend the United States–including sometimes acting against undeclared enemies–to assassinate an important government official has much bigger ramifications than killing an Osama bin Laden.

Mental experiment: Should the United States send a Reaper against other nation’s leaders who cause us trouble, such as North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un? He surely deserves the death penalty, but he is the head of state, bad as he is, of a sovereign nation, and there is no higher lawful authority to convict him. How about Vladimir Putin, who has tried to interfere with American elections, no less, and may also have contributed to American deaths in Syria. In fact, Russia is an ally of Iran and a supporter of the Shi’ite radicals of the sort Soleimani was organizing. Most of us would draw back from a drone attack on Putin, not only because of the state sovereignty issue but because the consequences would be so negative for the United States that it would not be worth it, even if he deserved it.

Yes, we should react to the killing of the American contractor. And to the 500 or so Americans reportedly killed due to Soleimani’s actions. But, remind me again, why was that contractor in Iraq? Why were the 500 American troops stationed there? The reason at first was to eliminate Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. Then the reason was nation building, to bring freedom and democracy to the region. Recently, to justify the continuing presence of several thousand troops, the reason is to prevent chaos. Well, chaos is what we have.

Now Iran is flying the red flag above its Mosques and vowing to avenge Soleimani with the blood of Americans. These are Shi’a Muslims, followers of Ali–Muhammed’s son-in-law and, in their mind, his true successor–who was murdered by the Sunni caliphs. Theirs is a religion that revels in martyrdom, suffering, and vengeance. These are people who celebrate their holy day by flagellating themselves with bloody chains. To this day the Shi’ites want to avenge Ali, which is why they are the enemies of mainline Sunni Islam, such as those of Saudi Arabia. Israel has been added to their never-ending hate list, and now the United States is being added to that company.

Iran says that they have identified 35 American sites that they will target. President Trump has responded by saying that he has identified 52 Iran sites–one for each American hostage back in the Carter administration–that he will attack if Iran moves against U.S. assets. Iran says that they have restarted their nuclear weapons program. The U.S. is sending thousands more troops to reinforce and protect the relatively small number already there. This kind of escalation could mean full-scale war with Iran.

Many of us supported Donald Trump precisely because he promised to keep America out of “endless wars.” Trumpian conservatism set itself in opposition to “neo-conservatism,” which pursued the idealistic goals of spreading freedom and democracy and in doing so kept starting those endless wars.

Hardcore Trump fans supported his desire to get us out of Mideast wars, and, now, if he starts one of his own, they will support that. On the other side, there are Democratic members of the “Resistance” who are accusing the president of a “wag the dog” tactic, starting a war in order to help his re-election, riding a wave of patriotic fervor by pro-war Americans. But I see no constituency for another war in the Middle East. Trump’s base of working class populists–the sort who usually fight our wars–and anti-establishment conservatives do not favor another war. This is not 2003, when virtually all Americans were itching to pay back someone, anyone, for 9/11. The nation today is still exhausted from the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. We may be politically polarized, but right now conservatives and liberals, the working class and middle class, Americans from every region and race and social level–no one wants another war. The only exception might be the handful of neo-conservatives who still remain, but these are invariably never-Trumpers.

Here is what I think will happen. President Trump will take the occasion of the current deterioration to pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria once and for all. This is his instinct. This is in accord with what he believes. The Reaper attack and maybe some other retaliatory actions will allow us to save face. We will leave claiming victory, feeling a sense of honor, while scornfully leaving these ungrateful regions to solve their own problems.

Already, within days of the Reaper attack, the Iraqi Parliament has passed a resolution demanding that United States forces leave their country. This is reportedly not binding on the Prime Minister, the chief executive of the country who must make that kind of decision. But, facing the high feelings of his population, he surely will. This would remove any legal basis for our being there. If we stay, we would be an occupying power. But why stay? This is the perfect pretext for President Trump to do what he has always promised to do: Bring all of the troops home.

Yes, the chaos will remain. Yes, we will need to worry about a nuclear-armed Iran. We will go from one extreme to another, from interventionism to isolationism, with no sense of how to devise a system that can keep the peace by a measured threat of force and multi-lateral action. And the current Democratic presidential candidates are not offering anything that would be helpful towards this end.

But if we are in another Middle East War, Trump will lose. If he brings Americans home, he will win. Trump will soon realize that and act accordingly.

Otherwise, we will reap the whirlwind.

Illustration: MQ9 Reaper, U.S. Air Force photo by Paul Ridgeway [Public domain] via Wikimedia Commons

Premium Content