Bolton gone as National Security advisor (plus Trump and the Taliban)
I can’t say this comes as a surprise, because it seems to me that Bolton and Trump had some serious disagreements on general policy regarding US involvement in certain areas:
I informed John Bolton last night that his services are no longer needed at the White House. I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions, as did others in the Administration, and therefore….
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 10, 2019
This may be as good a time as any to say that the “negotiating with the Taliban” story is a strange one. Why did Trump state he would do it in the first place? And given that his reason for withdrawing the offer was that the Taliban did something of the type they have done before, why did he withdraw it? There is something that doesn’t make sense to me here.
Of course, people who hate Trump have an easy explanation: he’s stupid and he’s evil. I don’t think he’s either. But I certainly think he’s capable of making an error of judgment. Was his original offer a big mistake, and did he correct it? And why did he make that error in the first place? Was it part of some less obvious strategy? Or was it just part of a steep learning curve?
I’m not into the “3-dimensional chess” explanation of Trump’s every move, but I do think he’s often (not always) an intelligent and a canny negotiator. Take a look at his tweets on this score, and it does seem as though a fairly elaborate game is being played here by Trump:
“Unbeknownst to almost everyone, the major Taliban leaders and, separately, the President of Afghanistan, were going to secretly meet with me at Camp David on Sunday. They were coming to the United States tonight,” Trump tweeted.
“Unfortunately, in order to build false leverage, they admitted to an attack in Kabul that killed one of our great great soldiers, and 11 other people. I immediately cancelled the meeting and called off peace negotiations. What kind of people would kill so many in order to seemingly strengthen their bargaining position?”
Trump continued: “They didn’t, they only made it worse! If they cannot agree to a ceasefire during these very important peace talks, and would even kill 12 innocent people, then they probably don’t have the power to negotiate a meaningful agreement anyway. How many more decades are they willing to fight?”
Is he trying to humiliate them? I have no idea, but this doesn’t seem to me to be a simple “I changed my mind” communication. Plus, if the talks were so secret to begin with, why even mention the change of mind? Something about this incident reminds me a bit of the back-and-forth with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, which was highly criticized as being destructive but doesn’t seem to have been so at all.
[ADDENDUM: I agree with this opinion of Ace’s about how Bolton’s leave-taking was handled.]
Trum is good at playing mind games with people who are rational or capitalistic like the Chinese or Koreans, but truly tribal patriarchies are still not something he knows how to deal with.
Nor does Trum’s counter attack strategy tolerate the Chinese concept of “face”.
Trum seems to thjink that if he pressure Afghanistan, that they can bring results. Except, tribals literally “cannot get results”. That is why they are tribal. They are not saving their face or making stuff up, by saying they can’t control their nation. THey literally cannot control their nation. They are way different from totalitarian centralized regimes like NK or Maoist CHina.
Also reading Trum’s tweets, this country is already in a case of pre Civil War 1 era discordance, strife, and hatred. Americans aren’t “exceptional” enough to recover from that on their own, any more than North vs South recovered before 1860 or after 1864.
If people wondered what kind of rhetoric and thinking was going on in the heads of Americans before civil war 1, all they have to do is to look at the replies to Trum’s tweets.
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/inaug2.htm
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it–all sought to avert it. While the inaugeral [sic] address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war–seeking to dissole [sic] the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.
One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope–fervently do we pray–that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether”
****
Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.-You Know Who
Never Allow.
Ymarsakar:
I actually agree that Trump’s form of pressuring the Taliban is unlikely to work.
I do long for the clarity of Ronald Reagan. He was crystal clear and consistent in his foreign policy.
Current U.S. foreign policy is a hot mess.
Nobody has any outside influence on those crazies. The Taliban is a primitive cult that blows up thousand year old statues and has no concept of civilization. They are unchanged from the time of Alexander the Great except for the AK 47s.
The Pakistanis are more sophisticated but no more civilized. They have been treated as allies since Nixon but they are savages. The Mumbai massacres are evidence.
Reagan had a pretty much binary world. This is a lot more complicated. Reagan also had a Democrat Party that was sane. Corrupt but that is something that he could work with. He let them spend and they let him win the Cold War. They had some crazies then, like the Boland Amendment and the Lawrence Walsh treasure hunt.
I’m not happy to see Bolton go because he’s one of the very few to publicly identify our enemies. That perspective alone is worth having a seat at the table of Trump’s advisors.
Trump’s willingness to directly negotiate with the Taliban nicely derails leftist criticism. He now proven that he’s willing to “give peace a chance”.
In reaction to the Taliban’s deceitful aggression, Trump calling off the meeting sent the message that peace is only possible when both parties engage in sincere negotiations. That twofold strategy invalidates domestic criticism.
That action also reveals to the Taliban that Trump is unwilling to take the easy way out and call it quits. Unfortunately, the Taliban are content with fighting us until a new President arrives who will take the easy way out. They rightly figure that time is on their side.
Only a paradigm change in perspective will change the eventual outcome in Afghanistan. Burn the poppy fields down, salt the earth. Then pull completely out. In future, drop MOAB munitions on any future terrorist training camps.
Identify Islam itself as the source of Islamic terrorism. Hold hostage the continued survival of Islam’s “holy sites” to it’s cessation of terrorist attacks. Declare that the day that a successful WMD attack upon an American city occurs is the day that Mecca ceases to exist.
Lay out in no uncertain terms the consequences for Islam and all Muslims if they don’t cease their attacks. Muslim’s failure to identify Islam’s fundamental tenets as the source of Islamic terrorism is de facto condoning of the attacks and tacit support of them.
Then, when they call our ‘bluff’ with another mass attack, destroy the Dome of the Rock… so they’ll then know that “there’s a new sheriff in town”…
Khalilzad brokered a tentative agreement that had ways to go. Trump caught wind of and was worried that someone else would get the credit.
So he swooped in and insisted on a meeting at Camp David where he could declare victory. The Taliban balked so Trump tweeted out what he did to save face.
Trump is simply way out of his league and doesn’t know what he is doing. He’s just declaring victory when there is none. No wall. No de-nuclearization of South Korea. No 3% annual growth. No repeal. No replace. No deficit reduction. No money from Mexico for the wall.
This time around his attempt to declare premature victory blew up the negotiations.
Reagan also had a Democrat Party that was sane.
The Democratic Party of that era wasn’t an enthusiastic advocate of open borders, or exalting homosexuality. Their advocacy of racial preference schemes was more tempered. They’d not have tried to sell someone as egregious as Christine Blasey Ford. They had a bloc of legislators that commonly voted with the Republicans. Other destructive tendencies were pretty similar to those we see today. One thing, though: the main body of the Democratic Party (with a scatter of exceptions like Dante Fascell and the young Al Gore) took every opportunity to undermine the Reagan administration’s foreign policy. Quite a number were functional promoters of the interests of foreign reds and a few were formal advocates as well. (See Ron Dellums and Robert Kastenmeier). One or the other position was modal among liberal opinion journalists of that era. Martin Peretz, Mortimer Zuckerman, Myron Kolatch and people associated with them were advocates of American interests in an uncomplicated way. That was a minority position among liberal journalists.
Manju’s got his talking points this afternoon.
I doubt the Trump-Bolton differences are primarily about Afghanistan, though of course I’ve no way of knowing. I do suspect it’s rather more to do with the crawling pace on Iran, and possibly the same lack of vigor on matters in our own hemisphere (Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua). But again, without hearing internal discussions, who would know? And they ain’t talking.
The Pakistanis are more sophisticated but no more civilized. They have been treated as allies since Nixon but they are savages.
There’s a lot that’s disagreeable about Pakistan. Pakistanis tend to loathe dogs. Every once in a while, you read a story of extraordinary cruelty imposed by freebooting locals on some harmless person. You have political violence (but not full blown insurgency), but the country’s homicide rate (at 4 per 100,000 per year) is unremarkable and they’ve managed to maintain parliamentary institutions for 31 of the last 34 years. A majority of the adult population is now literate. Per capita product is about 1/10 th that of the United States, but, to the extent these things can be validly evaluated, characteristic of this country in the immediate post-bellum period. Life expectancy at birth is now 66 years, a level not reached in this country until about 1935.
Art Deco:
Manju gets his talking points every day. That’s what I like about him—he keeps us up to date.
the Lawrence Walsh treasure hunt.
If Walsh had any driver other than pride and sheer careerism, it was the notion that the legal profession should supervise everyone else and the notion that the legal profession wasn’t bound by any ethical constraint it did not itself originate. He wasn’t a Democrat (he’d had a subcabinet position in the Eisenhower Administration), but he was happy to hire partisan Democrats to pursue his ends.
He hired the young Jeffrey Toobin in 1987 for a salary of $70,000 a year. The young clerks working for the Appellate Division in Upstate New York around that time were paid about half that; it was an absurd salary to pay to a 27 year old man who had been admitted to the bar only the previous year and whose only experience in law was that one year working for a judge. Toobin spent much of his time attending the trials of other prosecutors and collecting material for a memoir, so you can see Walsh was supervising his staff conscientiously.
Eventually George Bush got fed up and shut the office down, and that was the only reason his interminable investigation came to a close. His last act was to bring a perjury charge against Caspar Weinberger; the charge was invalid due to the passage of time and the contention of the charge – that Weinberger was guilty of perjury because there was a discrepancy between his notes of a meeting and his oral testimony 15 months later on that matter – would have been absurd even if the discrepancy concerned a matter of importance, which it did not. This charge was made public days prior to the 1992 election. Walsh then spent the next several years contending in print that Republican officialdom in the Reagan Administration had generated a successful ‘firewall’ that prevented him from bagging the boss and then beyond that attacking the integrity of Kenneth Starr. It was an egregious performance. The Mueller-Rosenstein fan dance was a recapitulation. We won’t get books out of either of them because Rosenstein hedges his bets and Mueller is dotty.
GB,
I agree with your idea of how to start ‘taming’ the violent impulse of hard line islam. That is what I wanted to begin after the mullahs seized our embassy and took our people hostage. However what I favored was making an example soley within Iran that would send message to all muslim majority nations.
The “Added” part of Neo’s Addendum by Ace is on point. This is what you get with a genuine political outsider and a hostile GOPe. I would have hoped that Trump could have been a little smarter and more deft in working around those impediments.
Rand Paul is happy to see Bolton gone (not surprising), and Mitt Romney thinks it is a big mistake (surprising?).
Very worrisome. Too many good people have come and gone.
People the likes of Mattis, Bolton, Haley had a clear vision of the world and were steadfast in pursuing the nation’s interests.
While I couldn’t stand Trump before the election. I was encouraged in the early days of his tenure. His thin skin, and tweeting obsession were excused because he seemed to have a vision, and the will to pursue it. Now, the layer of doubts is growing day by day.
There has been a lot of talk with few tangible results as the Administration’s door revolves. It seems the departures are heavily skewed to strong, independent voices who are lauded as experts in their field. Who next? Kudlow? Pompeo?
Oldflyer:
I assume you’re talking about foreign policy. What tangible results would you expect that you didn’t get?
The wall is the only one I can think of (although that’s a combination of foreign and domestic), and that seems to be progressing somewhat. There are some agreements with Guatemala and Mexico that seem to have helped the border situation, as well. (See this.)
As far as Afghanistan goes, I had no expectations. It’s a very knotty problem and not a simple one at all. North Korea likewise, but what’s happened has so far exceeded my expectations. Trump has been good on Israel, too.
I also contrast these results with what would have happened had Hillary been president.
And then there are domestic results, such as judicial appointments. Economy so far is quite good. Certain agency regulations that I didn’t like have been rolled back.
Could you describe what tangible results you think would have been realistic to expect and which didn’t happen? And which were under Trump’s—and not Congress’s—control?
I certainly agree with you, though, that a lot of good people have come and gone, particularly in the position Bolton was in. However, I don’t know why he was in that position in the first place, since the disagreements between Trump and Bolton were obvious from the start.
Ace’s insight is about right. Just look at how the (nominally) Republican House resisted Trump. They had the opportunity to do much more than they did. I don’t care for this public airing of who fired whom; Trump is too thin-skinned (but so was Obama).
There has been a lot of talk with few tangible results as the Administration’s door revolves. It seems the departures are heavily skewed to strong, independent voices who are lauded as experts in their field. Who next? Kudlow? Pompeo?
Strong independent voices that like fighting in Afghanistan ? No thanks.
I don’t know why he was in that position in the first place, since the disagreements between Trump and Bolton were obvious from the start.
Maybe he likes differing opinions. What a concept ! The dispute about who fired/quit is the only unseemly part.,
Mathis, now Bolton. How come the 3D chess player is unable to judge people he hires off a face-to-face interview of their views and ideas rather than how they might appeal to the base?
Is he trying to humiliate them?
nope… he is saying there is no reason to negotiate with people who are not actually in control… ie. if your the boss, and you say stop, then they go, your not the boss and you cant negotiate any terms because you say stop, they go
its a simple question of leadership…
either they ARE the leadership, have control, and can exercise it
or not
if not, then negotiations are a waste and you have to hunt down factions
Harry, have one skill dont mean you have another.
IF i could explain the stuff i make and can do, and do otherwise, i would have people lining up for things… not calling me up and saying hey, you know that thing you were on years ago, they actually made it and yada yada
no on reads people well… they just believe they do!!!
Et tu Brutus?
Neo, of course I am talking primarily about foreign policy since that is the gist of the thread. If you are confident that we have a coherent and consistent policy so be it. To me, the pace of turnover in the Foreign Policy and National Security arenas in less than three years is cause for concern. I want to believe that Trump has a clear vision of where he is going, and how to get there; but, so far the hyperbole has exceeded the tangible results in such troublesome areas as NKorea, China, Russia, and Iran. I am still hopeful that his long game will pay dividends, but not as confident as I would like to be.
I certainly have never thought, much less suggested, that Hillary Clinton was an acceptable alternative to anyone.
At this point, President Trump is our one acceptable option, and I will support him, even if I do express some concerns in certain very carefully selected forums.
I dont look on Trump’s practice of mis-hiring people to important positions to be a minor mistake, after all, he IS supposed to be a genius to some quarters.
Lee Smith, The Tablet: THE GREAT DEMYSTIFIER
Hudson Institute podcast, The Realignment: Michael Doran on the Failures of the Foreign Policy Elite
These pieces are not specifically about today’s event with John Bolton, but do provide some helpful backgrounding context to the ongoing policy struggles. Or so it seems to me, anyhow.
State has been useless since Acheson. The CIA is even more useless.
Trump has to feel his way. He and Boris will be a good team. The wets cannot stop BREXIT any more than the Deep State could stop Trump. Interesting times. Sort of like Britain after the 1832 Reform Act.
Amen to Ace & Neo.
Here’s the bottom line: John Bolton
is honest, honorable, strong of character, vastly learned & experienced. He doesn’t LIE. His version of the last 2-days are solid as stone. I’ll vote for Donald again, but he is a dancing Pinnochio. Ace’s opinion on his childish, narcissistic personality rings true.
I recommend Bolton’s fine memoir/meditation: “Surrender Is Not an Option”.
I’d bet plenty that John wasn’t shy in sharing his disgust with having Taliban butchers at Camp David only days before the 18th Anniversary of 9-11.
Inviting the Taliban to Camp David was just plain stupid. But I favored withdrawing from Afghanistan after OBL was wiped out in Pakistan. There can be no central government in Afghanistan. It exists as a nation state only in name and the borders drawn on a map. Always reserve the option to return and bring death from above, but Bolton wants a permanent boots on the ground in Afghanistan, Syria, and elsewhere.
Bolton has served presidents starting with Reagan through Bush 2, and served them well. But the current president has a different playbook. He serves at his pleasure. Get on board or get off the band wagon.
Trump is America first. I like having a president who is America first instead of a pawn of a president for the globalist agenda. Yes, he can be extremely annoying and is a very querky person. IMO he is a just in time POTUS.
Oldflyer:
I don’t think Trump’s foreign policy is exactly “coherent and consistent,” but it certainly follows a basic bunch of rules: look out for the interests of the US, know who your real allies are and support them, project strength, and keep everyone else on their toes.
What I was responding to in your comment was when you indicated you thought that there had been “few tangible results.”
And no, I certainly didn’t think you ever supported Hillary Clinton. I was just pointing out not only that I do see some tangible results from Trump’s presidency, but that one of those results was the blocking of what would have occurred with a Hillary Clinton presidency.
Mike K:
There are “differing opinions,” and then there are fundamentally differing opinions.
Mike K:
Also, regarding “strong independent voices that like fighting in Afghanistan” is a strange characterization of those who are hawkish on Afghanistan. Of course they don’t like fighting there. They may feel a US presence there is necessary to prevent worse effects—worse fighting, worse killing—both here and around the globe. Whether they are correct in that supposition or not, it doesn’t mean that they like fighting.
What we have is a contest of policies between Trump’s America first ideas and the GOPe’s U.S. as the world’s policeman philosophy.
Bolton sees the U.S. as the only nation with the strength, both moral and military, to maintain some order in the world. The trouble with that is that it’s difficult to decide, among all the bad actor nations, which ones are worth the blood and treasure. Some people are just fine with being in Afghanistan for 18 years with no conclusive victory or even a truce. Trump and those who support him (And according to polls about 67% of the citizens) think it is a form of madness to keep on pouring blood and treasure into a bottomless black hole of Islamic intolerance.
Finding advisors in the upper echelons of the government with expertise in foreign relations, who think America first polices are wise, is very hard. And we can see why. This nation has been more or less the world’s policeman since 1946. It’s hard to believe that if we take a hands off approach and ignore aggressive nations, things will not spin out of control. So, Trump is caught between what he wants to do and what most of his advisors think is the right thing to do.
I agree with Geoffrey B. about confronting fundamentalist Islam. It is their intolerant philosophy that lives on. You can kill millions of terrorists, but the intolerance lives on. Fundamental Islam and Sharia Law are incompatible with Western Civilization. Their religious philosophy must be confronted and kept out of Western nations. The question is how do you do it?
Trump is right about confronting China and its massive cheating on trade. Unless we are successful there, we may become a second tier nation behind China.
Russia is an economic basket case, but Putin has a lot of chutzpah and big ambitions. They are not the threat that China is, but because they have nukes, cannot be ignored. NATO is still our best weapon, but our growing energy production is a close second. Trump seems to get this about right.
Anyway, I’m not too concerned about Bolton resigning (or being fired). It’s just the MSM’s breathless anti-Trump meme of the day.
Sundance at TCH gives his reasons for approving Trump’s decision to let Bolton go (I’m neutral on the he-said-he-said timing):
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/09/10/senator-rand-paul-and-senator-lindsey-graham-discuss-john-bolton-removal/
Leaves from the Treehouse, for discussion if desired.
A2 says:
September 10, 2019 at 9:34 pm
As for the speculation about what Bolton might push for re Hong Kong, he is on the record. No warmongering. Same position as State.
cheryl says:
September 10, 2019 at 10:21 pm
Good article about Bolton and Trump
Bolton Likely Axed Over Taliban Deal, Leaks
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/bolton-likely-axed-over-taliban-deal-leaks/
A2 says:
September 10, 2019 at 10:22 pm
Everyone seems to be happy John Bolton is out. DPRK, China, Venezuela and former US Officials and Big Corp and investors who believe now the US will make a trade deal with China.
H&HC, 2nd-16th says:
September 10, 2019 at 10:26 pm
Someone posted before that PDJT listens to all sides and I believe in Bolton’s case the President tried some of his suggestions that didn’t pan out. When PDJT wanted to try alternative means, I believe Bolton pushed too hard against him. Never forget who the boss is. As someone else pointed out when you work for someone, you have a shelf life. Bolton reached his expiration date.
PS Nobody likes the State Department
Cowboy79 says:
September 10, 2019 at 10:04 pm
I worked with State. Their collective, in your face, view of All Politics was : Presidents come and go, but we have Always been here, Always will be, and We decide every future.. They see themselves as Transcendent, above all time, above all people, above all things. They are the Masters. Simple Presidents are Simply Passing Through Their World. It was enough to gag a maggot. Enough. Bolton worked FOR the President. Either he is “on board” or not. Period. The People didn’t elect Bolton. Whatever PDJT decided was his Right to decide. Every Person in the Executive Branch serves “at the pleasure” of the President. Right or wrong, it is what it is. I wish Bolton well, but he did not, does not, and never will, bear the responsibilities of the President. That makes one heck of a difference.
Bill says:
September 10, 2019 at 10:18 pm
I’m born and raised DC/MD/NOVA. I’ve dated senate aids, DOD, DOJ and just about every other agency type women. The one from the state department was by far the most arrogant. You’re description of them is apt. She thought she was royalty. And the thing that always irked me was when I would stay over at her place (I was self employed and made my own hours at that time) and she would wake up after 10am and take her sweet time getting ready and then get to work just before noon. Then she would call me around 2pm and ask me what I was up to and if I wanted to meet her back at her place because she was done for the day. These people aren’t only narcissist, they don’t even work, yet take all our tax money and give themselves large salaries and constant raises.
I hate the swamp. I’ve been living in it for 40 years.
“…IS supposed…”
Ah yes, the pursuit of perfection. Or respectability. Or style over substance.
Or unicorns.
As for me, I don’t give a hoot whether Trump is perfect or far from it.
I also don’t care whether he’s a total moron.
And this is because I know EXACTLY what/who the alternative is. Oh, and I’m no rocket scientist….
Meanwhile, here’s another tidbit that must be—that will be—squelched at all costs (by “the alternative”):
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/michael-flynn-exonerated-bombshell-doj-memo-exposed-during-hearing
But there is hope:
https://tennesseestar.com/2019/09/10/one-america-news-network-sues-msnbcs-rachel-maddow-for-10-million/
Actually, a whole lotta hope (the “alternative” doing its “GODDAMN AMERICA” best to be the gift that keeps on giving…):
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/10/rashida-tlaibs-political-revolution-treason-masked/
There is nothing to be gained by exrending our Afghanistan operations. After 18 years what has been gained? Absolutely nothing.. It is impossible place to “win hearts and minds” in a 8th century, tribal sh*#hole. Either nuke it with many warheads or let it go.
I don’t know who said what first in the Trump/Bolton drama, nor do I care. I have to laugh at people who nominally know the MSM lies to them daily but still jump to the drama and spin whenever something happens and the MSM always does its best to give the absolute worst possible interpretation.* Just wait until the furor dies before judging. This has proven to be a good policy in the past.
But I’m glad Bolton is out. He’s too hawkish for my tastes and I never trust a man so willing to throw young American lives at problems around the globe. Especially from a guy who admitted he joined the National Guard because he supported the Vietnam war but didn’t want to go fight it. There’s a word for men like that and honorable ain’t it.
I used to be pretty hawkish myself but even back in George W. Bush’s presidency I didn’t trust that man. My money is on him being an Oval Office leak source as well.
*I’m not including our host Neo in this group.
1. What J.J said. There are no “experts” who want America to stop being the world’s cop/nanny.
2. Implying thay they can’t control their own is a very subtle, and probably effective, way to undermine the current leadership.
And remember that many muslims are chafing under/embarrassed by the fundamentalism. Modern media, trade, and travel make cultural comparisons unavoidable. Not all muslims recoil and retrench after contact with the west. As with the Palis, internally directed terror is deployed across “dar el islam” to suppress dissent.
Publicly owning then ending the Taliban negotiations might have been more for the edification of N Korea and other unpleasant powers that we may eventually talk to: Don’t try pulling any cr@p. We’ll have no problem walking and blabbing if you do.
FWIW:
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1171446108603576328
These have been alluded to, but perhaps a couple of observations should be made explicit. (IMO, of course.)
1. Trump seems to be a negotiator, but one who looks upon negotiation as a tool, rather than an end to itself. If negotiations don’t work our–or if there is bad faith from the other party–he has no hesitation in leaving the negotiations. He won’t negotiate for the sake of negotiation.
2. Trump seems very pragmatic: he seems willing to try various things to see what works, without becoming wedded to any single method to the exclusion of others. If something isn’t working, then bye-bye whatever.
Note: The Wall is an example of “not becoming wedded to any single method to the exclusion of others. He appears to see The Wall as a necessary method, but is willing both to negotiate with opponents (e.g., on DACA) and to use other methods (sanctions re Guatemala & Mexico) toward the desired goal (drastically curtailing illegal immigration).
“Some people are just fine with being in Afghanistan for 18 years with no conclusive victory or even a truce. … [many] think it is a form of madness to keep on pouring blood and treasure into a bottomless black hole …” — J.J.
Well put. I looked up what the current rate of U.S. casualties in Afghanistan is, and it is about 10 or 12 per year. I presume that does not include suicides or vehicles rolling over etc.
_____
“she [State Dept. employee] would wake up after 10am and take her sweet time getting ready and then get to work just before noon. Then she would call me around 2pm and ask me what I was up to and if I wanted to meet her back at her place because she was done for the day.” — Bill
Ha! Reminds me of the hugely influential film “The Wizard of Oz.” I had seen it many times before I read that there is a substantial political subtext for it.
The yellow brick road and Dorothy’s silver (in the book) slippers were are reference to the gold and silver monetary standards, and Emerald City is a proxy for Wash. DC because of federally printed green money. The progression of the story began with the book, became a stage play, then a stage musical, and finally the film.
If you pay attention to the details of the film, you can hear a musical representation of Bill’s commentary on State Dept. officials from perhaps a hundred years ago.
Ozmites [denizens of Oz] : [singing] “We get up at 12 and start to work at 1! Take an hour for lunch and then, at 2, we’re done! Jolly good fun!”
To be fair, a 2 hour work day is infinitely larger than a zero hour work day.
Scott Adams has referred to Trump’s actions and statements as “shaking the box”. When you have a box full of pieces and you can’t see how they fit together, sometimes shaking things up will give you an arrangement that works better.
I can see that. I work for a utility, and at times things got hectic and confused. I discovered that I could actually get a lot done if I was willing to wait for the chaos to move pieces into a suitable relationship with each other, and pounce at that moment. I’m willing to allow that a President might do the same thing.
Tucker Carlson was smirking, and practically jumping with joy Iast night that Bolton is gone.
But, is Bolton gone a good thing, or a bad?
I don’t really know for sure, but I tend to think that—on balance—its a bad thing.
Why do I think this?
Well, as far as I can see, over the years Bolton has been the only actual and knowledgeable foreign policy expert who’s estimate of our enemies—and, unlike those who seem to be a majority of those inside the Beltway, who don’t think this way, Bolton was quite sure that we do have enemies, and who they were, and are—has been a lot more reality based than almost every other “expert” or political figure who you see bloviating on TV or in Congressional Hearings; more willing to go hard against our enemies rather than soft, or to pretend that such enemies don’t really exist, or are not out to bring us down.
Yes, Bolton may be a “Hawk” but, when it appears everyone else is some species of “Dove,” you need a Hawk to balance them.
Carlson sees Bolton as wanting to keep the U.S. involved in countless existing wars, and even in new ones.
The problem is—“keeping it real”—we live in a dangerous world, and, in effect, a bad neighborhood, we do have enemies, and they want to bring us down, to destroy, or to supplant us.
Given this reality—and wishing this were not the case—I really can’t argue with the idea of fighting our enemies on their territory, rather than here, on our home soil.
Do I wish we weren’t pouring our blood and treasure out on war; the waste, the missed opportunities for better things, the destruction, the casualties, the lives cut short, the maimed and injured? Sure, I do.
But, what are the alternatives?
Crouch down, make ourselves look small and defenseless and hope nobody comes after us, buying off our enemies, in effect, paying Jizya, protection money, agreeing to agreements and “peace treaties” that are violated before the ink on them is dry, or to withdraw from the World, create “Fortress America,”–pretend that the outside world and all its potential good things and dangers for us doesn’t exist–and hope that no enemy somehow penetrates our defenses?
I happen to think that all of those alternatives are not actual solutions in the long term, are productive of a lot of false hope, and worse than—with regret, and only because we have to for self-preservation—fighting wars overseas.
It takes great vigilance, savvy, self-confidence, and a lot of hard work and sacrifice for a civilization to become, to be, and to remain the leader in our World, at the top of the hierarchy, “top dog”—and fighting off all rivals.
And, once you start the downward slide, it can be a very steep one, and very final.
I wonder if a lot of people in our political and other establishments/elites don’t put up—or recognize that they need to put up—a good fight, their maximum effort, to keep the US in its current preeminent position in the World—because they have a deep seated, unconscious (and foolishly fatal) belief in their minds, that the United States is somehow different—is exempt from History—is guaranteed to be eternal—that things can go on as they have been—that the “good times” can roll on forever, and that the United States will never—like every other civilization before us—eventually decline, be eclipsed, and—to one extent or the other—just become a fading footnote in some future history book.
In the many comments above, I don’t see much reference to the number of body bags coming back from our “foreign wars”, not just Afghanistan. (10-12 per year for the last few years?).
I recall reading that Trump campaigned hard against foreign wars, and was against Bush in Iraq — and that in those counties where there had been many war deaths, Trump did better than expected.
There’s a lot of people tired of the US inconsistently, and thanklessly, and expensively, acting like the World’s Policeman. A peaceful world full of human-rights supporting capitalist wealth creating countries could probably also get benefits from a global police force. Our current and near term world is far from that.
For Afghanistan, and most places of conflict, I would advocate a Swiss canton type drastic decentralization system of governments, not a single central gov’t. So Afghanistan would be divided into multiple tribal provinces and small cantons.
The Realpolitik in me also thinks we need to copy the successful S. Korea nation building — have an anti-socialist strongman, possibly a dictator, who establishes and enforces property rights, with most economic freedoms, and slowly increases the freedom (the anti-communist dictator Syngman Rhee). This also worked in Chile with Pinochet, far far better for the Chilean people than Dem Socialist Chavez.
It possibly could have worked in Iran, with the Shah, but he was using his SAVAK secret police too much for Western media. We should note that anti-capitalist Western media is hypocritically against anti-communist dictators and their death squads as compared to commie dictators and their death squads.
I don’t like death squads, nor war. Yet I prefer anti-commie death squads to pro-socialist death squads.
The Taliban, and death squads, will rule Afghanistan after a US pull-out unless there is strong support for some form of anti-Taliban death squads; either US troops or US allies.
Bolton seems to honestly prefer endless war and US army to kill Taliban. Trump prefers fewer American casualties.
I can’t help but wonder whether using “the” Taliban is correct. I certainly don’t think that there are 21st century leaders there, but maybe there are lots of tribal and leadership rivalries that could weaken the organization as a whole. Maybe this whole thing was to shake things up. Also, could Pakistan put some pressure on the bad actors?
I wonder also how other countries and the EU view what is happening. I know, for instance, that Germany thinks they can negotiate with China and Iran and offer trade relations. There is just too much of the world that thinks if they talk nice things will get better, except of course when they don’t and the US has to bail them out. I bet the Germans hated Bolton, but they still have Pompeo and Grenell to deal with.
I’m not looking for perfection Barry, just some semblance of maturity and mental stability.
Tom Grey: Amen.
Bloomberg, so grain of salt: https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2019-09-11/trump-rouhani-meeting-odds-improve-after-john-bolton-s-exit?__twitter_impression=true
Watch this space.
In a tribal society we are just seen as the strongest tribe right now, but a foreign tribe that will be gone someday. We have no message about how to create an ideal society beyond a vague “Democracy” and consumerism. We offer no goal that can unite Afghanistan that will hold them together. We got back in there because Obama saw a way to bash Bush, and then was stuck with it. We are attempting to do the impossible.
The Islamist factional wars are as pointless as the European religious wars that raged for centuries. Trump is well intentioned and willing to try but knows when to just drop a deal and focus elsewhere.
Afghanistan has no solution. We do have a human obligation to those who chose to ally with us and need to give them a warning to organize themselves for when we leave, but we should leave. They will organize themselves in a “Strong Man” manner, the default tribal solution, and life will go on.
Trump is a well intentioned pragmatist who truly is America First in everything. What that means varies widely in different circumstances.
The Swamp really believes they are supposed to rule the world. It can be ruled and someone has to do it, and nobody else can be trusted with the job. They are a clueless elite, truly as bad as they appear.
Bolton is basically a Swamp Creature, just one who sees aggressive behavior as the best method to rule the world.
IMHO the Non Aggression Principle is the only solution. It is the unseen fundamental principle in what works in our society, and any human society.
It says that to have the best possible human society, nobody should initiate force against another, or deceive them so that they do something they would not otherwise do. Government should be limited to preventing force and fraud. Beyond that government becomes a problem.
It needs to be held up as our guide to using our great power, as defense. If we don’t have an explainable defense motive, we should not be involved.
Trump’s negotiating style is quite consistent and predictable — use the carrot and the stick at the same time. Speak nicely about Putin and Kim and simultaneously hammer them with sanctions. I’m sure Trump expected the Taliban to pull off some atrocity, giving him the opportunity to play Mr. Nice Guy by inviting them to negotiate, then yelling, “Hell, no!”
Afghanistan is not our longest war — we fought the Siberian-Americans for almost 200 years. It’s not even our longest occupation — the Marines occupied Haiti for 19 years, Nicaragua for 17, to say nothing of the Philippines, Germany, and Japan. But, since we were not willing to do what the successful conquerors of Afghanistan did, i.e. any trouble from a village, and you raze it to the ground, kill all the men, rape all the women and sell them into sex slavery, plow the fields under and sow them with salt. Not even the Russians were willing to do that in Afghanistan. (Although they were willing to and did it to Chechnya — closer to home, I guess.) I second, or third the motion that on our way out, we burn the poppy fields, bomb flat any Taliban base, village, or meadow, known or suspected, and leave a couple of CIA Special Activities Teams armed w/laser pointers. Full circle — that’s how we first beat the little bastards,.
Yet another angle to this story: https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1172198767627526151
Karl Lembke on September 11, 2019 at 12:53 pm said:
…I could actually get a lot done if I was willing to wait for the chaos to move pieces into a suitable relationship with each other, and pounce at that moment. I’m willing to allow that a President might do the same thing.
* * *
The trick is recognizing that moment.
“In fact, my views on Venezuela, and especially Cuba, were far stronger than those of John Bolton. He was holding me back!” @realDonaldTrump
It could be that the “some in the administration” that Bolton conflict with include Elliot Abrams, the United States’ Special Representative for Venezuela. I’m not sure what they would disagree about, though.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/trump_pulls_out_the_tyrantslayer_for_venezuelan_dictator_maduro.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/461125-trump-bolton-was-holding-me-back-on-venezuela
http://www.aei.org/multimedia/wth-is-going-on-in-venezuela-elliott-abrams-discusses-trumps-strategy/
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/28/world/americas/us-amnesty-venezuela-maduro.html
I just happened to see a couple minute interview with Condoleeza Rice on FOX about her reaction to Bolton’s firing, Bolton himself, the Trump Administration, and some foreign policy issues, and couldn’t help wishing–and not for the first time– that she was in a major foreign policy or other position in the Trump Administration.
She’s always struck me as being far more intelligent, informed, accomplished, and level-headed that almost any other public figure/government official in Washington.
But, I guess that with these qualifications—she is far too knowledgeable about Washington, and far too wise to want to reenter that snake pit.
P.S. –It just strikes me that anyone who actually wants to get something done in Washington–especially someone who actually (doing, as opposed to just saying that they want to “do”) wants to depart from the traditional path, and to do things differently, to try new approaches that, perhaps, may actually produce real and better results–will inevitably face an army of people and entrenched interests which–for one reason or the other–wants to block them, and to make it impossible for them to make any headway.
Why bang your head against a brick wall?
Snow, your 8:40am puts me in mind of a couple of recollections, whether apt or no I cannot say.
Nevertheless I charge forward: the first is an aphorism I’d heard attributed to D. D. Eisenhower which goes roughly “If you have a problem resisting solution, make it bigger”, the second is Machiavelli’s Preface to his “Discourses on Livy”, together with what I imagine was his general disposition as he began to muster his energy to embark on founding the modern world.
Genuine change may necessitate a work prolonged to centuries and only accomplished then by many willing hands throughout that time (and beyond too, I guess, if, as good and just change, it is to be meaningfully preserved).
sdferr–I suspect that the pace of change has been so accelerated by the last couple of generation’s developments in communications, data manipulation and storage, transportation, and other technologies, and the resultant changes in our economic situation and capitalist system.
And given, as well, the gradual geographic dispersal in patterns of our settlement and living, and the resultant disruption of traditional society.
Surveying the accelerating changes in our society and culture, educational system, moral and intellectual landscape, value systems, behavior, and political system that have been so wide-spread and profound.
I think that, in the world we find ourselves in today, such slow, patient, incremental change, and it’s preservation–much more suitable for, and possible in a much slower paced, less “connected” time–is, today, a diminishing option.
One possibility, though–find a physical location out of the mainstream (or, perhaps, try to hide in plain sight), gather like-minded people, try to preserve what is fundamental, essential, and good, and wait things out.
In essence, found a physical (or intellectual) organization similar to a Monastery or Abby–in the hope that when today’s civilization comes crashing down–as it looks like it might–(especially if we don’t get of this damn vulnerable planet, and spread out into our Solar system and beyond)–your organization–if it survives, which is very much not guaranteed–will be there to reconstitute civilization on a much more sound basis.
For some ideas, see “The Benedict Option,” the science fiction classic, “A Canticle for Leibowitz,” or some of the ideas in Asimov’s science fiction “Foundation” series.
Aesop: On Condi & “the snake pit”:
Amen. Did my heart deep good to see her introduce Brett Kavanagh at the Judiciary Committee a year ago and give her considerable muscle, integrity & strength to something which was, subsequently, to morph into an unforgivable ambush & (failed) lynching. God, what a great Lady.
TALIBAN IN ON THE VERGE OF A COMPLETE TAKEOVER !
And what are the Indians waiting for ? Not sending in the IAF ?
The USA is leaving Afghans in precisely the situation that the Americans wanted – a nation of squabbling warlords,antagonistc tribes and a resurgent Taliban.If the US wanted they could have bombed the Taliban,and at least delayed the Taliban wave until September – but they did NOT.
The US wants to put the fear of death into Ghani and his merry men, and the warlords – to push them into a coalition – desired by the USA, and funded by the USA.
Ultimately that will also fail,and the nation will be divided into “zones of influence”,with the maximum spread with the Taliban,and the Taliban controlling the supply chains to all oteher zones.So you will have a interlocked and connected matrix,which is spun by the USA ,every few months, by some “event” – to keep the players ,in their place – strategic disequilibrium – where all players are off balance – but will not collapse.
The Taliban will earn toll revenues from infra (built by the hapless Indians),and tax revenues from tradea,s CORRUPTION WILL DECLINE SHARPLY – and that is enough to finance the Islamic state.The BONUS will be Chinese investments into Taliban ,for minerals and the royalty,transit fees and profit taxes ,which will then get the Taliban, the funds to build an Airforce,which will then take over Afghanistan
The Mongols will redeem the Islamic state of the Taliban,as a part of the Ghazwa E Hind and other prophecies.In Return,Taliban will offer no sanctuary to East Turkmenisation and Xinjiang fighters ! Using the Chinese to deal with the Taliban is the best option,as they are a new face with NO HISTORY OF GENOCIDE AND PERFIDY IN AFGHANISTAN !
It is a NEW DAWN and the rise of the 1st REAL ISLAMIC NATION – which will be the most prosperous in the world (among Muslim nations) as the population is just 40 million and the nation has Trillions of USD of Minerals and will earn Billions of USD,via transit fees for the logistics and hydrocarbon corridors !
And that will lead to the revival of the Islamic nation (based on shariat) across all Muslim nations.It will be the 1st AND ONLY VIABLE TO THE DUBIOUS ELECTORAL DEMOCRACIES OF MUSLIM NATIONS.
WHAT CAN THE INDIAN WEASELS DO ? THEY COULD NOT PROTECT THEIR INFRA OR THEIR MI-24 CHOPPERS OR THEIR TRAINED AFGHAN ARMY OR NAJIBULLAH or CHABAHAR or THE TAKEOVER OF CHABAHAR BY PRC ?
THE INDIAN ARMY IS A PANSY FORCE – WHICH EVOKES NO FEAR OR RESPECT IN ENEMIES ! KILLING KASHMIRIS IS EASY, AND SO IS FIGHTING OUTNUMBERED KASHMIRI MJAHIDEEN,ON A SUICIDE MISSION, ARMED WITH AK-47 AND LIMITED AMMO AND NO KEVLAR ! AND STILL THE INDIAN PANSY CALLS ITSELF BATTLE HARDENED !
THE SAME APPLIES TO THE IAF ! IT HAS NO ROLE IN AFGHAN ! THE GOI MIGHT HAVE ALREADY CUT A DEAL WITH THE TALIBAN – TO NOT SEND IN THE ARMY OR IAF , AND NOT O TAID GHANI – AND IN LIEU,THEREOF,TALIBAN DOES NOT DESTROY INDIAN ASSETS AND DOES NOT ENTER KASHMIR !
THE INDIANS CANT EVEN KEEP THEIR MIGs FROM CRASHING – AND HOW DEEP CAN THE IAF GO INTO AFGHAN AND FROM WHERE – WHOSE AIRSPACE AND WHOSE REFUELLING AND WHOSE CARRIERS ? WHOEVER AIDS THE INDIANS WILL BE BOMBED BY THE TALIBAN ! dindooohindoo
IN ESSENCE,HINDOOS HAVE NO ROLE OR PLACE IN AFGHANISTAN ! BY RACE AND RELIGION THE PERSIANS,CENTRAL ASIANS,TURKS AND PAKISTANIS ,HAVE A ROLE ,AND AN AXE TO GRIND ! INDIANS ARE HISTORY – THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY !
THE US WILL GET TALIBAN TO KABUL ,BUT IN A GRADUATED MANNER – TO REALISE THE ROLE AND POWER OF THE US – AND IN RETURN,,TALIBAN HAS TO GIVE NO SPACE TO AL QAEDA ,AND BE MORE HUMANISTIC !
PEOPLE IN AFGHANISTAN WILL SEE THE MAGICAL NEW FACE OF TOLERANCE OF THE TALIBAN ,TO EVERYTHING EXCEPT CORRUPTION , VULGARITY AND BLASPHEMY !
AND ULTIMATELY, THE TALIBAN WILL LIBERATE KASHMIR WITH THE MONGOLS AND PAKISTANIS – NOT ONLY, DUE TO PROVIDENCE – BUT BECAUSE IDEOLOGY TRUMPS ALL TACTICAL ALLIANCES ,AND THE TALIBAN THRUST INTO KASHMIR, IS THE ISLAMIC SALVATION OF THE TALIBAN AND THE LAND OF THE LOST TRIBES OF ISRAEL , ID.EST AFGHANISTAN !