Karl's Bog

The murky world of politics (and other things) as seen from the Bog

Time to read:

5–7 minutes

Tag: Foreign policy

  • War! Again.

    War! Again. 

    For the third time in my life, the US is going to war under what appear to be false pretenses.  In 1964, there was an incident in the Gulf of Tonkin near Viet Nam which was presented as an attack on US navy ships.  It was later determined to be faulty intelligence that went uncorrected.  Forty-seven thousand Americans were killed as a result of hostile action.  Why?  We wanted to overthrow a communist government.  We failed. 

    In 2003, the US government went to great lengths to sell the country on the idea that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.   We attacked Iraq to destroy their nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare capabilities.  There was evidence before the war that the chemical and biological weapons had been destroyed to avoid sanctions.  There was no solid evidence of a nuclear program.  We used the existence of metal tubes as proof of gas centrifuge construction for enriching uranium.  Four thousand Americans killed and thirty-two thousand wounded.  Why?  We wanted to overthrow a regime we didn’t like.  The situation in Iraq is still unstable more than 20 years later. 

    Now, we claim that Iran can produce nuclear bombs and deliver them to the US on missiles.  Eight months ago we claimed to have “obliterated” their nuclear development capacity. Maybe their missile production capability is vastly superior to analytical estimates but there is no support for that argument.  Maybe we want regime change to save the population that we encouraged to rise up against the tyrannical government. That was before we abandoned them as tens of thousands were murdered by the regime.   There has been no serious effort to prepare the nation for this war nor to explain why it is necessary.  So why this time?

    Tim Snyder in the Substack “Thinking About” suggests that there may be two other motives.  One is to enhance Trump’s personal fortune by helping to eliminate Iran as a gulf region power.  That enables countries that have been exceedingly generous to him – gifts of 747s, lucrative financial deals for his family, sale of AI chips to rich Emirati Sheiks – to influence him to use American military strength to eliminate their rival.  This is a personal corruption motive. 

    It is also possible that the goal of a foreign war is to create instability, division and fear at home and to use that fear to either cancel or constrain upcoming elections.  That might be helpful to Trump as well as to Netanyahu in Israel.  If peace and tranquility return to Israel, Netanyahu will face trial.  Trump may be concerned at the same thing as he has said numerous times that he will be impeached, again, if the Republicans lose the House of Representatives in November.  If a war is in progress, the president may argue that elections must wait and will certainly press the “rally ‘round the flag” message as Netanyahu does. 

    In “Lucid” on SubStack, February 28, Vali Nasr, professor and middle east expert, is quoted by Ruth Ben-Ghiat saying, “this war, which Prime Minister Netanyahu lobbied for, is part of a dream to expand Israeli power in the region. In support of this imperialist aim, messianic Orthodox and secular nationalist Israeli ideologies come together with Christian nationalist views”. These views coincide with much of the Trump administration as well, including Hegseth, Rubio and Ambassador Huckabee. 

    Another possible motive is regime change.   There is skepticism about regime change because we encouraged Iranians to fight the regime.  Then after the Iranian military and police killed tens of thousands doing that, we did nothing.  A bigger problem is same one we encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It is easy enough to overthrow a regime but without preparation for what comes next, the war will fail.  After we overthrew the Taliban and left Afghanistan, the Taliban returned.  They were the only well-organized group in the country that had the history, breadth, and power to do so.  Same after first gulf war.  Hussein stayed in power.  As explained in Why Nations Fail, by Acemoglu and Robinson, there must be existing institutions and institutional memory to recover. Absent that, there is no pattern for the new leaders to follow to a new society.  Iranians alive today lived all or most of their lives under the Shahs or the Ayatollahs so we would expect little in the way of better institutional models. 

    When a regime is overthrown and the over-thrower does not stay to set up shop, the groups most likely to take power are the ones with guns, organization, and expertise in infrastructure management.  In Iran, that is the IRGC and their thuggish state police the Basij.  It is possible that a technocratic organization of state bureaucrats and technicians could come to power but there is no sign of a leader.  The son of the late Shah has the name but no guns, nor organization and the last Shah was chased out of the country.

    Preparation for this follow up is key.  How will we find the nuclear and missile sites and ensure they are destroyed this time?  That needs someone’s boots on the ground! How will we communicate with the rebels if they do rise up?  How will they communicate? Our international communications organizations have been gutted as have our support organizations.  Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and their Radio Farda used to be the open airwave to Iranians.  When the attack began, Radio Farda had been severely limited by Trump and Kari Lake cuts.  It is still operating but at a deficit.  USAID which used to deliver aid of all types is absorbed somewhere in the State Department and not able to operate independently. 

    We are attacking a country that represses its citizens brutally, interferes with nearby governments through their proxy fighters, and has at least a civilian nuclear and maybe a missile building program that could bear fruit in ten years.  There is another country that has already invaded a sovereign country, demands its territory, restrictions on what international organizations it can join, and the removal of its elected president.  The justification for the attack is that the invader wants the territory, is afraid the victim might join its enemies, and is a threat. They have been at war continuously for four years with over a million casualties.  Why isn’t that a higher priority for us than Iran?

    This essay will also be published on SubStack. And take a look at Tim Snyder’s “Thinking About …” and Ruth Ben-Ghiat’s Lucid SubStacks.

  • Embarrassment at Davos

    Trump’s presentation at Davos was embarrassing. I began drafting this essay thinking I would direct blame for some of this administration’s self-inflicted chaos to Republicans in congress, cabinet members, and both official and unofficial advisors.  It’s not that they deserve more blame than the Don for the costs, chaos and corruption of the government but I don’t think they get enough.  I kept coming back to the fact that Donald J. Trump is president of the United States of America and they are not.  The buck stops with him no matter how hard he tries to redirect it.  So here it is, focused on the main driver.

    I was embarrassed by the POTUS display at Davos.  What I found most embarrassing was the fact that this man-child elected by my fellow citizens has virtually no understanding of the world.  He may know how to make business deals that enrich him but he doesn’t know much else. Take geography for example.  He appears to believe that the Mercator flat map projection gives an accurate perception of the size of continents.  In fact, it makes everything nearer the poles appear much larger than they really are.  Hence his preoccupation with Greenland.  That and the fact that he has friends with business interests there.  Also, he thinks that adding that much territory will enhance his legacy.

    He also seems unaware of the ocean conditions in the far north. Greenland is in the middle of an ice pack. In winter it occupies the entire eastern and northern coasts and lurks to the west on Canadian shores. If a nation is to be successful protecting sea lanes, exploring, researching or commercializing Greenland and surrounding territory, it needs icebreakers.  Big ones!  Not for river ice but for Arctic sea ice.  The US might have 2 capable icebreakers.  The rest of NATO has between 30 and 45.  Russia has in the neighborhood of 40-50.    We are planning to build more. Seven more.  Based a design from Finland.  Pushing NATO away while trying to make a case for securing Greenland under these circumstances is at best self defeating.

    Disparaging NATO activity during the Ahgan and Iraq wars should embarrass all veterans and any American who paid any attention at all to the news. Denmark lost more soldiers per capita supporting the US on the front lines than we did. I thank you NATO.

    Another cost of pushing NATO allies away is that may cause them to consider creating a stronger European alliance that is less dependent on America.  The European Union, which includes all the NATO nations in Europe, is the world’s largest market outside the US.  China follows closely.  If Europe is sufficiently worried by the saber rattling and decides to move closer to China or to expand markets in South America, Africa or South East Asia, it would be at the expense of the US.   

    By the way, federal funding for agencies that used to produce reports on sea conditions and ice concentration has been cut.  The National Snow and Ice Data Center is no longer funded to produce reports on the extent and concentration of sea ice among others.  If we are serious about defending Greenland, wouldn’t we want to know the latest and best information about conditions in the Arctic Ocean? This is an administration whose right hand that doesn’t appear to know what the left hand already did.  

    Trump also appears not to know or care that we already have an agreement with Denmark and Greenland that gives us free rein over our military operations in Greenland.  We had many bases there from the 1950s until after the cold war.  Those bases can be resurrected and we can build others in coordination with Denmark and Greenland.  Instead of the chaos he created at Davos, he could have had agreement to proceed and we could be building or upgrading as many of the old facilities as we want or building new ones right now!  Instead of maintaining warm relations with NATO countries, he managed to irritate almost everyone in Europe, especially in Greenland and Denmark. I wonder how that will work if we actually build new bases.  Will we have to import all the workers because locals don’t want to work with us?  That should save money!  

    Tariffs, being Trump’s favorite word, also came up at Davos.  Trump threatened an additional 25% tariffs on several European countries if he did not get his way on Greenland. Canada would be in for 100% tariff if they entered a free trade agreement with China.  He also admitted that the reason for all the Greenland chaos is that it is very important to own things for him, pyschologically.  Are the tariff threats, bullying, the attacks on NATO all because of his psychological needs? 

    So, in how many ways has Trump embarrassed not only me but the whole country?  

    He is illiterate on geography, unaware of practical issues of defending the island, oblivious to loss of funding for important information about Greenland, ignorant of existing agreements, uncaring about economic damage, disparaging of our allies, and really only interested for his own psyche and his friends’ enrichment.  Not bad for a single conference!

    And all that was before the ICE disaster in Minneapolis unfolded.

    ————–

    This essay will also be published in Substack.

     

     

     

  • Making America Weak Again

    MAGA means “Make American Great Again” but what is actually happening is “Making America Weak Again”.

    The role of a national government is often described as needing to protect life, liberty and property or pursuit of happiness along with other elements that depend on the type of government. Nations that are strong do those things well. Nations that are great do them very well and do them with the success of their people in mind. Nations that are great understand that they live in a world with others. Nations that are great protect their people from foreign military adventures, from domestic and international criminals and government corruption. Their businesses are protected by strong laws securing property rights and by honest courts. They protect against unfair competition both at home and abroad. The great countries attract strong allies with whom they can share intelligence, markets and defense burdens. I assert that they also have a guiding moral direction that appeals to the people of other nations as well as their own and underlies the strength of their alliances.

    Unfortunately, America is well on the road to weakness by squandering many of those assets.

    President Trump is doing tremendous harm to America’s greatness, not making us great again.

    It began with the refocusing of FBI, CIA, DEA, DHS and other agencies’ workers away from their intended jobs and toward immigration enforcement. While it is fine to find and remove undocumented immigrants, we also have to deal with drugs, murder, kidnapping, fraud, terrorism, espionage, money laundering, human trafficking and other crimes at the national level. The staff that used to track those problems is now largely dedicated to chasing and deporting people who are for the most part law abiding citizens and productive members of the community.

    Threatening to grab Greenland is making us even weaker. First, it is an appalling moral approach. He is saying to another sovereign country that he wants their land and they should concede because he likes real estate. Consider that Russia might want Alaska back or Mexico might want Texas, Oklahoma and the rest of the land we took from them. Or China makes the stronger case for Taiwan. Or for Japan. Or Australia. China can easily argue that they need Japan and Australia for security because they stand between the US and themselves. 

    Grabbing Greenland by any means seems likely to destroy NATO. We would then lose intelligence sources, allied troops and material, the European NATO members then would be occupied on two fronts – trying to keep Russia in check in the east and trying to figure out what we are doing in the west. 

    Leaving NATO would make the security of Greenland more tenuous. If NATO is not there to help us, as they were in Afghanistan and Iraq, we lose major military support. We lose trained and experienced winter and cold weather troops. We lose military equipment. We lose major sources of intelligence from the region where the Russian navy sails on its way to the Atlantic and to the Arctic Ocean. If we want to keep Greenland out of Russia’s hands, it is far better to combat them with a larger united force. 

    Greenland is causing more domestic disruption. It is another burden on Trump’s popularity and is beginning to affect his ability to accomplish his domestic agenda. (I’m in favor of his not succeeding with his domestic agenda but rationally his Greenland stance seems to work against it). On top of the turmoil caused by ICE and reaction to ICE, it is causing Republicans in Congress to push back. It is already being suggested by – Republicans! – that moving against Greenland could cause another impeachment.

    It is also making China stronger. Countries that feel they can no longer depend on us for markets or support are turning to China. Mark Carney from Canada just visited China to build trade relations. Chinese exports to the US are down due to the tariffs but up overall as other countries have stepped up. 

    The chaos and domestic disruption could have an effect on US bonds. If lenders think they are facing more risk with American bonds, they will demand higher interest making it harder for us to sustain our debt and driving up the cost of mortgages. That’s a huge problem if it lasts beyond the current presidential term. 

    Just today, Trump threatened higher tariffs on our NATO allies who support Greenland’s independence. That promises even more costly European imports.

    Lastly, the chaos and disruption in the US and Europe means less attention being paid by the already depleted foreign relations staff to Northern Africa and the Sahel and also to southeast Asia. When no one is watching the strongmen and militias and war lords, they are freer to do as they please which is good for no one. It was when no one was watching Al-Qaeda that 9/11 happened.

    As I look at this, even considering that the US would have a huge expanse of land with rich minerals in areas, it looks like a weaker America. And a failed real estate deal.

    This essay is also published on Karl’s Substack

  • Why Not Trump?

    Why not Trump for president?  He has expressed some good ideas.  For example, he has indicated the value of his being “self funded” to avoid being beholden to special interests. He is for improving the US infrastructure, repairing our tax structure, fixing the VA, fixing immigration, updating or replacing the ACA, expanding the economy, reviewing our trade policies and fixing Social Security while reducing the national debt.  Those are all goals I can support.  Those are also all goals that Hillary supports.

    They differ mostly on how they would review trade policy and on tax cuts and how they would implement some of the goals above.  Trump says he’ll rip up our current trade agreements and start over; HRC says she’ll work to make sure they are fair.  Donald will cut taxes across the board; Hillary will raise taxes on the rich.  Hillary’s resulting budget deficits will be about the same as projected under current law resulting in a debt of 86% of GDP in 10 years.  Trump’s will be higher resulting in 106% of GDP in ten years.  Trump says he’ll generate so much growth that we will cut the deficits and start bringing down the debt.  Non-partisan economists say that won’t happen.  Actually, pretty much all economists that are not part of his advisory council say the same thing.

    Overall, his policies are somewhat different from mainline Republican ideas but if you remove the rhetoric, most are not extreme.  So why are some people so against him?  I’ll get back to that.

    Hilary’s policies are not outrageous either.  She is a politician and an insider.  As a result, people don’t like her.  She has added to the normal dislike and distrust of politicians by her own actions.  Her political instincts were sharpened in Washington and she has been under attack for a long time.  I don’t understand the deep-seated antipathy some politicians have toward her but I would guess it comes from the ill-fated “Hillarycare” she managed under her husband’s presidency.  Hillary has been under intense scrutiny for 30 or more years.  The Donald has not.  Hillary’s every flaw is well known.  Donald’s are not.  He has not only been fined by the Justice Department for violating a consent decree regarding housing discrimination but investigated for bribery, corruption in a construction project, sale of two housing units to members of the mob, stock dealings, illegal loans from his father to his casinos, improper lobbying, misleading earnings reports and Trump University .  Hillary is far from perfect but she is  very well known.  The Donald is known mostly to followers of the Apprentice.  Running the United States is not a reality TV show.

    Why not Trump?  If his policies, absent the exaggeration and hyperbole, are not totally despicable and in many ways not that different from Clinton’s, and their record of federal investigations are not dissimilar, why not take a chance on the outsider?  Here’s why.

    1. He is making bullying an acceptable behavior.  If a presidential candidate can make his arguments almost entirely through innuendo and ad hominem attacks, then that must be ok.  When said candidate uses social media extensively for the sole purpose of name calling, it must be normal.  Schools no longer need to teach the elements of logic nor critical thinking because all you need to win an argument is a bag of clever insults.  The idea of punching back regardless of the issue and punching harder means it is ok to beat up the little kid who gets in your way or to take his lunch if he insults you.  Sixth grade bullies have a how-to guide from the Republican candidate.  Way cool!  Ironically, Melania Trump spoke out against cyber-bullying and related her own wonderful story of coming to America.  However, the largest group of cyber bullies I know of are from Breitbart, InfoWars, 4Chan and of course, @theRealDonaldTrump.  Some of their most frequent targets are immigrants and immigration.  In other words, her husband and some of his most energetic backers.  Bullying is not ok; it is not an acceptable model for the president; and it coarsens the country and reduces its intellectual capability.
    2. Impetuosity is a liability in foreign affairs.  Combined with his bullying instincts, I can imagine him going off-script and upsetting multiple foreign heads of state.  Why do we care?  We need information and intelligence sharing with as many countries as possible in the fight against terrorism.  We need economic cooperation to improve or even maintain our trade deals.  We need our allies to believe we have their backs.  There are enough countries that don’t like us already.  We don’t need to add to the list by insulting a European head of state, for example, for being behind on NATO payments.
    3. The country needs to be united; he is a divider.  What ever you feel about Clinton or the press, inciting crowds with “Lock her up” chants and inviting insulting and abusive behavior to the press should not be acceptable.  We have due process laws.  They even apply to Democrats.  Hillary has not been charged  with any crime in the 30 years she has been in Washington.  We do not lock up people who have not been indicted.  The First Amendment is just as important as the Second (and all the rest) but it was first for a reason.  The writers of the Constitution knew the importance of the press and right to assemble.  Whether Donald does or not is less important than how his followers perceive the message and who they choose in the years to come at state and local levels.  Will press freedom begin to diminish?  Attacks on due process increase?  Where will that lead?  I don’t know but it won’t be a country governed by our Constitution.
    4. But the biggest problem is cynicism.  A campaign that panders to and reinforces the legitimate fears and concerns of a large part of the nation but has no credible plan to fix those problems is just cynical. I said earlier that fixing our immigration system is a good idea.  Trump has taken he good idea though and turned it into an element of divisiveness, not over how to fix the policy but over the immigrants and refugees themselves.  Even though Trump’s policies are not tremendously out of line with many candidates, his rhetoric is.  Listening to him makes it sound like the barbarians are not only at the gate but have broken the hinges and only he can now save us.  I find this appeal to the worst and most fearful elements of natures to be the best explanation of “why not Trump”.

    Why HRC?  See above.  If the Democrats ran a normal candidate or even Bernie Sanders, there would be no contest.  Hillary has many flaws but she should not be further tainted by the sins of her husband.  The one thing that sets her apart (for this election) is that she worked effectively across the aisle when she was a Senator and developed good working relationships with a number of Senators who are still there.  She has some small chance of unifying the country.  Mr. Trump does not appear to me as though he wants to unify it.

  • President Obama’s ISIS Strategy – What I Heard – and Didn’t

    I found president Obama’s response to ISIS to be unsatisfying.  It described why we feel a threat from ISIS and that we are planning an extended bombing campaign.  However, it isn’t clear how it really differs from current policy except that it will go on longer  and may extend into Syria.  Most of my questions are still unanswered.

    1. Represent a wide coalition.  All I heard about the composition of the coalition was that Secretary of State Kerry is working on it.  It is intended to be a large group but apparently is not yet.  This is not the George H. W. Bush style of preparing a coalition before the fight starts.  Too bad.
    2.  Enable building respect for traditional Islam.  The president noted that ISIS is not an Islamic organization by any stretch but could have done more to attract true Islamists and promote moderate clerics.
    3.  Make our motivation is clear.  Our motive seems to be only the interests of the US.  That’s ok for us but there was no story to tell those who are inclined to believe that all we care about is oil and our business interests.  He mentioned groups that have been severely oppressed but it was sort of a passing comment rather than a strong motive.  We would not be increasing our activity solely to protect Iraqis.
    4.  Goal. How do we know when we’re done?  How will we know if we are winning?  I still don’t know.  I guess we’ll know when ISIS is defeated because we’ll know it when we see it.  I was hoping for something a little more specific.
    5. Roles.  Since we don’t know who the partners are, we can’t say their roles.  Makes this post easier to write though.
    6.  Sunni relationships. As I feared, the president took the wishful thinking approach that the new government is automatically a better and more inclusive one and that the Sunni’s will therefore automatically be motivated to fight ISIS.  Time will tell but this is a major issue.
    7.  Exit Strategy.  Oh well, maybe that will be clear as well.  It certainly is not now.
    8. Forward.  Last, can we leverage the coalition for the future?  Well, we don’t know who is in the coalition, what their roles are, how they are motivated so a prediction of the future can only be made by a politician.

    I give the president an A for effort and for taking on a campaign he really does not want but a D for content.  Now I hope there is more to come and wish John Kerry remarkable success in his mission.

  • President Obama’s ISIS Strategy – My Hopes

    The president’s and the country’s strategy for “defeating” ISIS has been evolving, as it should, as we learn more and work with other countries to develop the strategy.   Here’s what I hope he addresses.

    1. Represent a wide coalition.The coalition should include European, Arabic, sub-Saharan African and Asian partners from both Islamic and non-Islamic cultures.  This is important because the virus of ISIS exists in only moderately weaker versions in both east and west Africa between al Shabab and Boko Haram plus splinter groups and fringe elements.  If we are going to eradicate it, we need to get it all.   Also, that wide a coalition is important because ISIS is a threat to Saudi Arabia, Jordon, Egypt, Qatar and all the other neighboring governments.  They need to show that they fight against the funding for ISIS that comes from their own countrymen, block borders from ISIS militants and stop providing safe havens.  In addition, Russia needs to participate!
    2.  Enable building respect for traditional Islam.  ISIS is completing the hijacking of Islam that began some decades ago.  They have made it a refuge for psychopaths and sociopaths worldwide that have no respect for the basic tenets of the religion.  Their actions defame Islam and need to be repudiated widely and loudly by legitimate Imams and clerics.
    3.  Make our motivation clear.I want to see opinion pieces in Al Jazeera that reflect the threat and a motive that showing concern for the Arab states as well as the west.   Our stated motives should make sense beyond the shores of the US and western cultures.  This means improving our image with the Arab street.
    4.  Goal. How do we know when we’re done?  How will we know if we are winning?
    5.  Roles.  What role will our partners play?   What will the Saudis contribute?  Jordanians?  Israelis?  Europeans?  Who supplies weapons, troops, tactical command, and strategic command? Who takes care of which border crossings?
    6.  Sunni relationships. We need to show how we are going to get Sunni support in Iraq and Syria to help combat ISIS. The new Iraqi Prime Minister will be said to be the way forward but he has not had time to demonstrate “inclusiveness”. There must be a stronger case for inclusiveness than wishful thinking.
    7.  Exit.  What do we do when we are done?  That will include what we do when things go wrong before we’ve met the goal.  There will be defeats and set backs for us.  Will we be prepared emotionally for those situations?  It must also include the governing arrangements for Iraq and Syria.  Will we make peace with Asad if he stops killing the moderate rebels and drenching his citizens with chlorine gas or are we pushing for regime change?  If the latter, how do we get countries to support us?  If the former, how do we get popular support in the west?
    8. Forward.  Last, can we leverage the coalition for the future?

    I fervently hope that the president has a well thought through plan and has the requisite alliances in place. He approaches problems with care and thoughtfulness. Let’s hope he gets this one right.