Right in San Francisco

Trump's Half Term: An Assessment

    'Tis the season for looking back and looking forward; for assessing accomplishments and opportunities unfulfilled; for thinking what was, what might have been, and what might yet be. In Trump-world this exercise is best done in two year increments - since the last election and to the next. 

The easy part: What was and what might have been. 

    - Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the presidency - all was possible, but never in recent history has a president faced such constant, vitriolic opposition from the opposing party, most of the media, and a significant slice of his own party. In the House, the Freedom Caucus prevented compromise; in the Senate the 60 vote threshold for most matters and the few Never Trumpers among the 51 seat Republican majority proved too liberal for the more conservative House. And that's before Robert Mueller's relentless probes to find anything to bring the president down. 

    - With that setting, Donald Trump delivered peace and prosperity, with the working class and minorities sharing the bounty for the first time in decades. 

        -- Despite the Fed returning monetary policy toward normalcy after 8 years of stimulus, the Obama era "new normal" of 2% GDP growth was bettered by 1 to 2 %, and unemployment of 4.5 % was reduced below the 4% often considered "full employment". Deregulation (deleting two old for every new regulation; freeing smaller banks from Dodd-Frank), tax cuts (benefitting 85% of payers), energy expansion (offshore; Alaska; fracking; pipelines) , and tariffs (particularly on steel and aluminum) all contributed. The results are undeniable, and they belong to Trump.   

         -- The ISIS caliphate was defeated in short order, and the promise to cut back on being the world's policeman is being fulfilled despite a messy world full of fanatics and despots. 

        --  First important steps were taken to force China to conform to World Trade Organization norms - reducing state support for favored exporters, and stopping industrial espionage - and to engage North Korea in denuclearization talks. Leaders with long term contracts in both countries will try to wait out the Americans. 

        --  The Republicans whiffed on "Repeal and Replace" of Obamacare, but the individual mandate was repealed, it was made easier for small businesses to group together to buy health insurance, and stripped down short term plans were made more available. 

        --  An early offer to Democratic Congressional leaders to trade DACA for a wall was rejected and remains an elusive goal as the Democrats prefer to stoke their voter base.   

        --  The more partisan accomplishments were also myraid: cancellation of President Obama's Iranian nuclear giveaway; withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement; moving our embassy to Jerusalem; appointment of two Supreme court justices and 83 lower court judges.   

And the hard part: what the next two years might hold. With Trump's high energy, unconventional style, and broad agenda in the wake of President Obama's globalist, liberal, ineffective legacy, it has been possible to make progress across a broad front. With a Democratic House (and an effective leader), it will be necessary to significantly advance a few key initiatives.   

    - Strategic confrontation of China's trade practices is broadly popular, but will take time and a coalition. When Trump withdrew from the Transpacific Partnership in January 2017, most of the other participants went ahead with a set of trade agreements which do not include China. Whether a formal participant or an interested partner, this coalition is ready-made for a more favorable realignment of East Asia trade relationships. 

    -  North Korea's nuclear program must be dismantled.  Mike Pompeo's performance review in 2020 should be heavily weighted on how well he works with South Korea and Japan to accomplish this goal.

    - We cannot go on with porous borders, millions of largely assimilated young illegal immigrants in the shadows, and a demographic which shows an aging native population in need of young workers to support Social Security, Medicare, and the general economy. Real border secutrity in exchange for DACA is so obvious that only cynical politicians can refuse to find the equation.  Unfortunately we have plenty of them. 

    -  Personality flaws aside, the biggest risk of a President Trump working with a Democratic House is the ballooning budget deficit.  With interest rates rising and current deficits coming out of Paul Ryan's House exceeding $1 trillion, one shudders to think of what Pelosi and Trump might concoct. Someone somewhere in the federal government needs to take notice. 

        One can hope that Mueller will get out of the way, and that the next two years are as productive as the last two. 

                                                                                                        -----

    This week's video is a shocker -  Van Jones on CNN praising Donald Trump and Jared Kushner for their role in assembling a coalition to pass major prison reform which will greatly reduce incarceration for nonviolent offenses, and should be a big plus in the African American community.  

bill bowen - 12/28/18 

 

     

    

 

 

 

 

 

Engaging China

    First, some very macro thoughts:

        - It is a good thing that some 400 million Chinese peasants have risen from poverty in the last couple of decades. There are several reasons for this progress - political stability following centuries of foreign control, civil wars, and Mao's Cultural Revolution; successful centralized planning for infrastructure and industrialization; tight internal by the Communist Party; and an outside world eager to buy cheap Chinese-manufactured goods. 

      - American global hegemony since World War II, and particularly since the collapse of the Soviet Union, is a rare phenomenon in modern history. The United States represents some four percent of the world's population and about 20% of the world's economy. Economic ascendency has allowed military, political, and cultural ascendency. China, with 19 % of the world's population, also represents about 20% of the world economy - having grown at about 10% per year for four decades. 

        - The United States' trade deficit with China of some $375 billion annually represents about half our overall trade imbalance. Primary imports from China include consumer electronics, machinery, and clothing. Primary exports include agricultural products, aircraft, and electrical machinery.  America's advantage in intellectual property is being greatly eroded by requirements for American companies doing business in China to share their technology, by the education of some 350,000 Chinese students in American universities and thousands of others employed by American companies, by hacking of American data bases, and by installing spyware in Chinese-manufactured electronics.  Republicans and Democrats have both let the problem grow. 

        - The American and Chinese economies and societies operate under fundamentally different systems.  Many core industries in China are dominated by state-owned companies (often run by the military); the Chinese government is centralized, without our checks and balances; the current president, Xi Jinping, recently had his term limits removed so that he can be "president for life"; China operates on Five Year Plans with strategic allocation of resources; dissenting opinions and minority populations are suppressed. (The desirability and long term viability of decentralized capitalist democracies versus centralized socialist dictatorships is a subject for another day.)  

        While the United States slept, China has openly advanced several initiatives designed to surpass the United States as the world's most powerful country by the middle of the century. While far ranging, the total effort is predicated upon ongoing substantial trade surpluses. 

        - The Belt and Road Initiative. Beginning in 2013, the $4 to 6 trillion dollar program to build roads, railroads, and ports supporting economic, cultural and political  connections between China, Eastern Europe, the Persian Gulf, Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia has been the centerpiece of Chinese foreign policy.  Underpinned by the China Investment Corporation which manages some $5 trillion of foreign exchange reserves, China shares development costs with the 60 participating countries, but is able to play a dominant role - as have the United States and Europe through the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund which were established after World War II.   

        - The "Made in China 2025" initiative which was announced in 2015 intends to surpass the United States in the key technical fields of artificial intelligence, robotics, and biotech within a decade. Elements include the education of engineers (some 350,000 studying in the United States), and national R & D spending of 2% of GDP (greater than Europe.)  

        - Traditionally a "continental" country, China has expanded its navy to the point where its ships outnumber the United States Pacific fleet. The current flashpoint is the Chinese-constructed island military base in the South China Sea between the Philippines and Vietnam, designed to extend claims to mineral rights and control of passage. The larger threat is to Japan whose economy is dependent upon an exposed supply of oil via tanker routes around Southeast Asia and up the Chinese coast.  

        - As much as the French would like for the euro to replace the American dollar as the world's reserve currency, the Chinese would like to see the yuan become the global standard. With our federal government debt surpassing $20 trillion, annual budget deficits of some $1 trillion, and trade deficits of $800 billion that is not an unreasonable goal.  

      Enter Donald Trump. Lost in all of the daily crises and breathless reporting is a strategy. First he withdrew from President Obama's Trans Pacific Partnership which would have joined together a dozen countries in a trade agreement which excluded China, believing that the United States can do better with bilateral agreements where our dominant position is maximized. (The others have gone on without the United States.) Then he negotiated a beneficial trade agreement with South Korea - finalized in September. Then he negotiated a revised NAFTA - finalized last week. Then he got President Abe to agree to open trade negotiations which will impact our $69 billion deficit with Japan. In time he will bring in the Southeast Asians who are fearful of Chinese domination and who benefit as increasing Chinese manufacturing costs drive production to lower-cost havens - Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia. 

    In the spirit of Lenin's alleged quote about capitalists selling the rope with which the communists would hang them, many "Free Trader Republicans" see China as a huge potential market rather than a fierce competitor. Trump gets it; Boeing doesn't.  The outward battle is about tariffs and trade deficits, but the implications for the world order in the 21st century are much greater. 

                                                                                            -----

    This week's bonus is the memo which sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell wrote after cross examining Dr. Blasey Ford. With hindsight, her questioning and this memo were not aimed at the media or the general public; they politely explain to Senators Murkowski, Collins, and Flake why Dr. Ford's allegations are not credible.  

bill bowen - 10/5/18

     

    

Reflections on 9/11

     The remembrance of 9/11 has become a one day event, something like Armistice Day celebrating the end of World War I. Perhaps this is because the American psyche (and the Bush presidency) was shaken a short seven years later by the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the Great Recession. Perhaps it is because the intervening 17 years have not seen anything similar. Perhaps it is because the media is focused on getting back to everything Trump - his Supreme Court nomination; the Woodward book; the New York Times op-ed; prospects for the November elections - and he doesn't fit in the narrative. Let's reflect a bit more deeply. 

    For those interested in bi-partisan good work in Washington, the 9/11 Commission Report published in 2004, and led by Republican Thomas Keane and Democrat Lee Hamilton, provides a detailed and readable background on al Queda, the events surrounding the attack, and recomendations to prevent future attacks. Recommendations ranged from the tactical (e.g. interoperability of communication systems among first responders), to addressing the sources of Islamic radicalism, to reorganization of the United States Government. It is worth the read. 

    So much changed during the Bush and Obama presidencies - but perhaps not much really did.  

        - The Middle East became the focus of foreign policy, to the neglect of Russia, China, and Europe. As a direct result of the attack we overthrew the Taliban government in Afghanistan because they insisted on harboring Osama bin Laden, and followed the British and Russians into our own quagmire which continues to this day. While Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, we replaced him and launched a disasterous civil war between the Shia and the Sunni. We helped foster the "Arab Spring" in the belief that democracy would defeat radicalism, only to have the military dictatorship in Egypt reject the Muslim Brotherhood and  chaos engulf Libya. Our relations with nuclear Pakistan deteriorated as their support for the Taliban and harboring of bin Laden put us at cross purposes. Seventeen years later it is hard to believe that we have done much to alleviate centuries-old grievances or to elevate support for America among the Arab masses. 

        - Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's ISIS broke off from al Queda, tried to form a caliphate in Iraq and Syria, and was largely obliterated by President Trump. Bin Laden was killed, but his organization under Ayman al-Zawahiri remains committed to attacking the West for defiling the holy sites in Saudi Arabia.  

        -  Our national security structure was redirected and reorganized, away from NATO, strategic deterrence, and the dissolved Soviet Union toward the threat posed by small groups or individuals. The intelligence community - blamed for not putting the clues together before 9/11 - was restructured with a new Director of National Intelligence replacing the head of the Central Intelligence Agency as the President's "go to" source. The Department of Homeland Security brought together the Coast Guard, the Border Patrol, and myriad other departments. Joint task forces became the norm. The Transportation Security Administration was created to protect against shoe bombers and smuggled bottles of chemicals. 

        - The National Security Agency was given broad latitude to monitor communications and store "metadata".  When Director of National Intellignece Clapper lied to Congress about the scope of data collection, he was reflecting a common public attitude - "Do what you have to do; just don't make it public because we would then need to reconcile ideals with realities."  Like the prison at Guantanamo, expanded surveillance reflected a trade-off of some of our innocence from an earlier day.  

    What is really striking is the success that the national security establishment has had in deterring or preventing more domestic carnage. "Lone wolf" Islamic terrorist attacks have recently numbered four to eight per year with the largest being the San Bernadino Christmas party massacre of 16 in 2015, and the Orlando night club killing of 50 in 2016. While several attacks have been applauded by Zawahiri, there has been no direct link or coordination. Despite the porous southern border and over 500,000 legal immigrants each year, the 2001 perspective that we were under seige and would remain so for decades has been largely eliminated.  Some of the credit belongs to the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, but much also belongs to the Jethro Gibbses and Hetty Langes who toil in anonymity. 

   The innocent victims of 9/11, and particularly the remarkable heroes who ran into collapsing buildings and thwarted the Flight 93 hijackers deserve to be remembered for their courage and their sacrifice. Hopefully theirs will remain a unique chapter in American history.  

                                                                                                    -----

        This week's bonus is an assessment of the November election by Karl Rove - a great political mind; not a Trump fan. 

bill bowen - 9/14/18

Trump's Dreadful Trip

    Sometimes being right on the substance and wrong on the form isn't good enough. While trying to do too much in one week, the president's proclivity for disruption and the media's proclivity for hysteria - familiar shows in domestic venues - fell flat when translated to the world stage. Some things just don't sound as good in French or Finnish as they do at a rally in Kansas City. A perspective: 

    The Bad

    1.  The United Kingdom is in the midst of an epochal struggle to redefine the nation and it's relationship with the world. Prime Minister Theresa May is trying to thread the needle, adopting a "soft Brexit" stance which retains "free trade" and shared customs procedures with Europe, a posture which has caused some 10 of her ministers to resign. The Donald found it necessary to opine that remaining part of the EU for trading purposes would make it impossible to have a trade agreement with the United States - and that her most problematic Conservative Party rival would be a good prime minister. On the merits, a "hard Brexit" would have reflected a choice to align more closely with the United States and the Anglophile world, but this advice reflected a most unwelcome intrusion into British politics at a most inopportune moment.  

    2. Trump's apparent acceptance of Vladimir Putin's perfunctory denial that Russia had meddled in the 2016 election over the American intelligence community's consensus that they had was a low light of the presidency to date. In truth, no level of Trump berating Putin in public would have satisfied the critics. The Justice Department's decision to indict 12 Russian intelligence officers three days before the meeting was intended to ensure that the issue received prominence in the Putin discussions; cries of treason from Obama's CIA director James Brennan and House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer say much more about them than about Trump's actions; and Trump did see the need to correct the record on the following day. Back in 2016 President Obama told Putin to not meddle again; a similar admonition would have been good. 

    3. Trump's assertion that the United States leaders had acted foolishly relative to Russia in the past deserves domestic discussion, but does little to further our negotiating position with Putin. It is a good thing that Trump was not asked to put some meat on the bone by the collusion-obsessed media. For the big picture from a Russian perspective, the original post-war core NATO was expanded by President Clinton to add Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic; by President Bush to add Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Rumania, Slovakia, and Slovenia; and by President Obama to add Albania, Croatia, and Montenegro. President Trump is being asked to add Bosnia/Herzogovina, Macedonia, and the former Soviet Union states of Georgia and the Ukraine.  On the substance, one might also ask about American meddling in Russian elections during the Yeltsin and Gorbachev era; President Obama's assertion that Russian ally Assad must go in Syria; or the coup in the Ukraine which overthrew an elected pro-Russian president and (coupled with potential accession to NATO) put the key Russian naval base in the Crimea at risk. When it comes to Russia, we do lack empathy and self-awareness.   

    The Good 

    1. NATO, and particularly Germany, need to be taken out behind the woodshed. Past presidents have politiely tried, but Trump is committed. Most are not making much progress toward their 2014 commitment to increase defense spending to 2% of GDP by 2024, relying instead on the United States to carry the burden of deterring the Russians while the Western alliance has extended eastward into what was once Moscow's sphere of influence. A major re-thinking is needed when Germany, stuck at 1.2%, enables their former Chancellor (Gerhardt Schroeder) to become CEO of a large Kremlin-connected Russian energy company (Rosneft), and to build a natural gas pipeline which will make Germany reliant on Russia while undercutting Ukraine, which sits astride Russia's current major pipeline to Europe.  

    2. The list of things which Trump discussed with Putin is long and appropriate - the North Korean nuclear program; the war in Syria; the need to contain Iran's ambitions in the Muslim world; a follow-up to the 2010 nuclear arms reductions agreements; Israeli security; the conflict in the Ukraine.  In the age of Resist, the Left doesn't think that Trump should be talking to Putin at all and is critical that there was not a memorandum of new groundbreaking agreements. Talking is good - and the press conference comments relative to North Korea and nuclear arms agreements offer some optimism for those so inclined, as is the offer of a second meeting in Washington.  

    3. We have an annual trade deficit in goods of $150 billion with the European Union, partially offset by a $50 billion surplus in services, driven by both tariffs and other barriers such as exclusion of genetically modified agricultural products. While the big goods imbalance is with China ($375 billion) and there are significant problems with Mexico ($70 billion ) and Japan ($70 billion), Trump was right to explain the need to restore a trade balance with the Europeans. They are allies and not "competitive foes" as Trump claimed, but they are certainly competitors. Everyone objects - major trading partners; the industries facing higher tariffs; the Resisters; the anti-Trumpers - but our global $800 billion trade deficit in goods is not sustainable. There was time when most of our markets were internal; we were rich enough to use trade deficits as a major geopolitical tool; and "free trade" did not need to be balanced. That time has passed, and Trump is willing to take the short term heat - particularly at a time when the economy is booming. 

    Bereft of other ideas, the Left has escalated its "Russia is the enemy, Trump wants to get along with Putin, Mueller will find the smoking gun" meme. From a long term geopolitical perspective Trump has it right - as did Obama, if by intent if not action. With their nucler arsenal, energy resources, broad geographic sweep, and United Nations veto power, the Russians are an important player relative to both Europe and China.  Trying to work with them - regardless of what Chuck Schumer and Rachel Maddow think - is a good thing. For that Trump deserves credit. 

                                                                                                -----  

    This week's video is a short, little-reported section of the Trump-Putin press conferendce in Helsinki - in which Putin talks about $400 million which were illegally obtained in Russia and contributed to Hillary Clinton (presumably through the Clinton Foundation.) 

bill bowen - 7/20/2018

North Korea: Four Considerations

    It is easy to get thrown off track. When President Trump proclaimed that the North Korean nuclear threat was over, he was doing his normal "take him seriously, but not literally" schtick; when the New York Times proclaimed that the Kim-Trump summit was a failure, they were doing their normal "write the headline before the event" anti-Trump journalism. In this most important negotiation of the decade, it is helpful to keep a few major factors in mind. 

    1. Success requires Chinese concurrrence. 

        - The breakthrough with Kim Jong Un occurred in 2017 when Xi Jin Ping began to enforce the economic sanctions against North Korea passed by the United Nations Security Council following missile tests.  With some 90 % of the Hermit Kingdom's foreign trade being with China, maintaining an intolerable level of deprivation requires Chinese concurrence. Kim has gone to the mountain twice in the past six months for consultations; he understands where the power lies. Ditto Mike Pompeo. 

         - Any guarantee of Kim's survival will require Chinese participation. After Kadhafi and Hussein, the word of the West has been devalued.  

        - Our relationship with China is complicated by the $375 billion trade deficit. Xi and Trump have an agreement for a substantial increase in Chinese imports, but there will be much chest thumping by politicians and busineess leaders about tariffs and counter-tariffs. Both leaders know that the current imbalance is not tolerable, and that a true balance is not attainable. As long as there is progress, the deficit should not get in the way of solving the mutual objective of removing the destabilizing nuclear threat in China's back yard. 

        - Congress can be unhelpful. Trump agreed with Xi to find a way to keep Chinese telephone manufacturer ZTE in business after they violated sanctions against trading with Iran and North Korea - firing senior management; changing members of the Board of Directors; paying a billion dollar fine. The Republican Senate is trying to override that agreement. 

    2. Time is a big factor. 

        - Kim, age 34, is dictator for life. Xi has recently had the rules changed to allow him to stay in power for as long as he wishes. Trump may be out of office in 31 months. 

        - The Iran agreement demonstrates to Kim both that Americans might accept a limited agreement with a finite time frame, and that in our system it is a new game with a new president. It is a nuance probably lost on the Koreans, but a treaty approved by Congress would be a much stronger American commitment than an agreement made only by the executive branch - as was President Obama's style on the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris Climate Agreement. 

        - Mike Pompeo's objective of lifting sanctions following verified denuclearization within Trump's first term is the only realistic goal.   

    3. It is imperative to keep focused on the objective. 

        - Trump critics will become obsessed with the fact that the president is not addressing human rights - which is a total non-starter. 

        - Good will gestures are important, but not essential - the return of the remains of Americans killed in the Korean War; the conditional suspension of war games with South Korea. 

        - Other goals can be used as bargaining chips - the removal of American forces from South Korea; a formal treaty ending the Korean War; granting of McDonald's franchises in Pyongyang.  

        -  It is to our advantage to raise expectations on the part of the people of North Korea.  If Kim's internal propaganda falsely claims that we have agreed to remove sanctions, so much the better. He promised economic progress when he succeeded his father; instead he has delivered increased deprivation. 

        - Kim's ego is critical. Witness Trump's rise from the field of 17 in 2016, he understands how to manipulate people. If he chooses flattery, so be it.

    4. The essence of debate is whether sanctions will be phased out as North Korea takes (perhaps reversable) steps, or whether they will remain in place until irreversible critical steps are verified. South Korea would probably accept the prior approach; China may also. Trump cannot. 

    Given the importance of these negotiations, their domestic political significance, Trump's hyperbole, our penchant for immediate gratification, and the amount of anti-Trump bias in the media, it is difficult to judge the likelihood of success.  Talk of a Nobel prize for Trump is way premature, but the foundation of personal relationships has been laid, objectives have been agreed upon, and good will gestures have been abundant. The best indicator of real progress is probably the occasional statement by Secretary of State Pompeo - the perfect point man. 

                                                                                                        -----  

 

This week's bonus video is an interview with Jerry Yellin,  a 91 year old fighter pilot who flew the last mission in World War Two from Okinawa. 

bill bowen - 6/15/18

North Korea: Continued Optimism

    President Trump is playing two simultaneous chess games - one to denuclearize North Korea; the other to make a quantum change in our trade deficit with China. Since Chinese cooperation is critical in controlling North Korea, the two are intertwined. Understanding the likelihood of success in either negotiation is difficult, both because the terrain is complicated, because much of the mainstream media paints everything Trump does as a failure, and because much of the financial media is opposed to any changes to current business arrangements. The Korea negotiation is the harder of the two, because the objective must be completely obtained; "success" in the trade negotiations can be more flexibly defined. This optimist believes that The Donald has a plan which can accomplish both objectives. 

    On the plus side, Trump offers a clear statement of the intended outcome: verifiable total de-nuclearization of North Korea; halving the  trade deficit with China. In a world where many American interests are part of the negotiation, he is unafraid of offending his knee-jerk opponents, and even his allies. A first priority was to establish a personal relationship with the key decision makers - he directly with Xi Jinping in China, and Secretary of State Pompeo with Kim Jong-Un.  Symbolism is important - Kim understands that he is below Jinping and Trump, and how and when he gets to meet with Trump is part of the negotiation. It is fair to assume that Kim's two meetings with Jinping included some direction from Beijing, and some discussion of personal safety guarantees. Trump is a good negotiator - he is keeping all of his powder dry, rather than making concessions just to get negotiations going. 

    On the minus side, Trump hires some terrible advisors. The clear path of the recent backtracking in the Korea negotiations could be summarized as: a period of positive statements and symbolic good will gestures (releasing prisoners; demolishing North Korea's nuclear test site); John Bolton musing that we needed to follow the Libya model (in which Muammar Gadaffi gave up his nuclear program, was deposed, and was assassinated); a series of understandable belligerent comments by Kim; a re-siezing of control by Trump in which he cancelled the planned June 12 meeting; and a new set of positive comments and planning activities with Kim, Trump, China, and the South Koreans. The totally unnecessary problem was precipitated by Bolton acting in his prior commentator / provocateur capacity rather than someone who actually is a central part of the administration. He was hired to project a tough stance during the negotiations, but was not smart enough to know how to play the role. He has apparently been taken to the woodshed, not to be heard again unless Trump needs some bluster at a future sticking point. 

    On the "To Be Demonstrated" level, it is an advantage that Trump can control all of the elements of the American game. He can accept a "strategic direction" of decreasing our current annual trade deficit of $375 billion by $200 billion - the type of thing that heads of state can agree on privately, without giving their domestic opponents a specific number as a rallying point. (Agricultural and oil/natural gas sales to China will be substantially increased to the detriment of Australia and Brazil. Expansion of US sales of technologically sensitive items will be a longer term negotiation.) Trump can agree to "solve" the ZTE problem - in which the Chinese telephone company is near bankruptcy as a result of American sanctions following prohibited activity with Iran. (Congress complains; the media complains; the Democrats complain, but Trump agrees that will be enough for ZTE to fire some key employees and change a few members of the Board of Directors.) It will be enough to have strong momentum on trade through the time that firm comitments are made on North Korea's nukes. 

    This is also multi-player chess. The South Koreans know that they are on the front line of disaster if negotiations fail - and are willing to pay a good piece of the North Korean redevelopment cost. The Russians want a place at the table - and could be a problem if they stop enforcing sanctions. Countries bordering the South China Sea will get nervous if  Trump trades acceptance of Chinese militarization of their newly built islands in exchange for North Korea or trade concessions - actually a recognition of the new reality might be acceptable if it seals a big deal.   

    The "off again-on again" meeting planning should be viewed as a good thing - both because Trump's immediate response showed a full understanding of the need to guarantee (with China's help) Kim's longevity in power, and because Kim's willingness to put Bolton's gaffe aside indicated the extent to which he needs to substantially improve the economic circumstances in North Korea. This is a deal that the two of them need, and can make. The key is for Trump and Pompeo to be able to retain focus for the year it will take to agree on actions, timelines, and guarantees. And to remember the stakes.

                                                                                    -----

   This week's video chronicles the current high-level discussions between North Korean Vice Chair Kim Yong Chol, Secetary of State Pompeo, and others in preparation for the Trump-Kim meeting in Singapore. While "it ain't over til its over", all of the right steps seem to again be in alignment.  

bill bowen - 6/1/18

The Essential Mike Pompeo

    Mike Pompeo's Easter weekend meeting with Kim Jong Un in Pyongyang is reminiscent of Henry Kissinger's secret trip to Beijing in 1971, preceding President Nixon's world changing meeting with Mao Zedong seven months later. Both trips by the American president's foreign policy advisor sought to redirect a highly adversarial relationship; to reflect a sensitivity to the customs of Asian leaders; to place a premium on personal relationships; and to lay the groundwork for agreements of world-changing importance. By all accounts and subsequent statements from both sides, Pompeo accomplished his objective. 

    It will be critical to manage scope and focus. North Korea's nuclear and missile programs are on the verge of being capable of delivering warheads anywhere in the world - or of selling the technology to others. This cannot stand - whether by military means or by diplomacy. There are other issues with North Korea - the incarceration of three Korean-Americans on espionage charges; repatriation of Japanese citizens kidnapped decades ago; computer hacking; the murder of Kim's half-brother in Malaysia; North Korea's chemical and biological programs; sanctions and economic development. Legitimate, but extraneous,  issues must not be allowed to distract from the purpose, although they may serve as indicators of good will and quid pro quo's.  

    Fortunately, we have examples of success to emulate, and failure to avoid. 

        - For success, there was the controlled dismantling of the nuclear capabilities of  former Soviet states (Kazakhstan; Ukraine; Belarus; and, to a lesser extent, Russia) in the 1990s. International structures were established for verification. Economic rewards were timed to performance. Scientists were provided alternative employment. 

        - For failure, there is the 2015 Obama / Kerry agreement with Iran, where there are no limits on missile development, nuclear facilities are not dismantled, inspections do not extend to military sites, and the agreement expires without future commitments beyond a decade.  

    This is a complex, multi-party process. While the United States has the lead, China has a major role to play in ensuring that North Korea understands their limited options, and in guaranteeing any eventual agreement. South Korea will play a major role in any economic development package, as well as in the new political / diplomateic order. Japan has a major interest. Russia borders North Korea, and has an interest. The US negotiating team will need to deal with military, economic, political, and technical issues. Fortunately, there are a lot of experts; what is needed is leadership. 

    Trump's Kissinger is Mike Pompeo: graduated first in his class from West Point; Harvard Law Review; successful businessman; three term congressman from Kansas; easily approved as Director of the CIA; has established a working relationship with Kim Jong Un. Perhaps most importantly, he has the confidence of the president, and knows his way around the Defense Department and the intelligence community. Unlike John Kerry, he will not come seeking "peace in our time".  

    What could go wrong? 

    1. The Democrats did their best to prevent Mike Pompeo from playing the crucial role, without any denial of his qualifications or glimmer of a better option. Objections fell into three categories: 

        -  He is too conservative (on Iran, immigration, and the Middle East) for the Secretary of State position, particularly when coupled with John Bolton, Trump's new National Security Advisor. Tradition, including the Republican Senate in the past administration, has overwhelmingly given the president the right to pick a Secretary of State who agrees with him. Not this time for 42 Democrats.    

        - He refused to engage with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on the irrevelant question of whether legislation is needed to protect Special Counsel Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein from being fired. That says nothing about Pompeo, but much about Schumer.  

        - Trump and Pompeo might just succeed. Better that we have a nuclear North Korea than a second term of President Trump. 

    2. Despite effective sanctions, apparent alignment between Trump and Xi Jinping, and encouraging statements by Kim, he could be unwilling to give up his one international bargaining chip. We've been here (or nearly here) before. This time sanctions are real, and China is apparently on board. 

    3. Kim (and China) may believe that he can outlast Trump.  Unlike Kim who kills potential rivals, Trump has a special counsel searching for any wrongdoing, the political opposition calling for impeachment, potential loss of control of the House, and a Senate which will barely confirm qualified cabinet secretaries. One of the rules of dealmaking is to be sure that your counterpart can deliver; the leader of the Hermit Kingdom may have his doubts. 

    Confirmation of Mike Pompeo should be the news of the week, even more important than Comey's book tour, Stormy Daniels' upgraded booking fee, or Bill Cosby's conviction.  In our media system it is not, but in any case he can now get to work on the most important problem facing the world. 

                                                                                           -----

    This week's bonus video is an interview with former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, General Jack Keane, discussing the leadup to the North Korean nuclear negotiations. 

bill bowen - 4/27/18  

The Negotiation of the Century

   Historians will compare the Trump / Pompeo North Korea negotiation with the Obama / Kerry Iran negotiation - each deals with an intractible enemy, one of George Bush's "Axis of Evil"; each has America playing the  central role on behalf of a broad coalition; each offers global destruction as a potential result of failure. The Obama / Kerry episode looks like of a reprise of Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time" - good enough to let Kerry bask in the glow of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize (at least among the glitterati Left); but not good enough to include inspection of military facilities, a cessation of missile development, or any restrictions after a decade; and greased by billions of American dollars delivered on pallets in the middle of the night. Whether or not he cancels the Iran agreement, Trump must do quantum better with North Korea.  What is needed:

    1. An experienced, competent, cohesive negotiating team. One of the first rules is to understand who makes decisions. In the Iran negotiations thre was a naive hope that political divisions within Iran would somehow have the "liberals" overrule the ayatollahs. There is no such illusion in Korea - Kim Jong Un and Trump are the decision makers. The North Korean team will have a distorted view of the United States and the broader world; our State Department has been badly diminished, with no ambassador in South Korea.  The replacement of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson with Mike Pompeo, and the replacement of National Security Advisor General HR McMaster with John Bolton aligns a hard-nosed team, but development has skipped over Spring training and the 162 game season to begin in the playoffs. Sustained interest by the captain will be needed.  

    2. Clarity of goals and strategies. Obama had stated goals at the beginning of the Iran negotiations: shutting down Iran's research sites, stopping centrifuges which produce fissile material, eliminating the stockpile of enriched uranium. None were accomplished. Trump's goals will be similar - the verified dismantling of North Korea's nuclear program. Obama backed away from restricting Iran's missile program; Trump will probably include this goal, but it is secondary.   

    3. Profound understanding of the goals and strategies of the opposition. Iran is playing a waiting game with their nuclear program with restrictions expiring after 10 years, while they have been increasing their  influence in Iraq, Syria, and Qatar.  This was the fatal flaw of the Iran negotiations. Kerry and Obama were committed to the crowning achievement of a deal - even if it was weak and had a 10 year sunset. This time our adversary's goal is regime survival, with the possession of nuclear missiles seen as a tool in that direction. Having observed the demise of Muhammar Khadaffi in Libya and Saddam Hussein in Iraq after they gave up their programs, and the dismembering of Ukraine who gave up theirs after the break-up of the Soviet Union, there is much logic for Kim Jong Un's posture. The key element of any agreement is a strong globally-agreed Chinese guarantee of Kim's leadership. 

   There are reasons for optimism: Substantial trade constraints are in place, with Chinese concurrence; Kim understands that he needs to consider the positions of China and South Korea, but the discussion will be directly with Trump; despite Russia's small border with North Korea and their UN Security Council veto, they have been excluded; and Xi Jinping apparently gave Trump a "heads up" on Kim's visit. Perhaps the absence of an ambassador to South Korea means that Team Trump is comfortable with the State Department and CIA professionals. 

    This is hard, but not impossible. South Korea will be willing to pay huge bribes in order to avoid nuclear or conventional decimation. China does not want a rogue nuclear nation on its border - and could use some chips in its trade negotiations with Trump. There is some truth to the premise that Kim craves a "meeting of equals" with Trump - after all, our president is even more important than Dennis Rodman. As Obama proved, the result of a negotiation is a function of not only the hand that you are dealt, but also the skill with which it is played. Trump is no Obama; Kim is no Xi Jinping. Let's be optimists. 

                                                                                                     -----

    This week's video is an interview with Republican John Cox, who is currently polling second in the contest to replace Governor Jerry Brown. The premise - California has veered so far to the anti-Trump left that there is an opening for a successful businessman who offers the voters a  common sense antidote to one party rule with an ultra liberal legislature. If he can get through the "top two" June primary, he may be that person. 

bill bowen - 3/30/18

 

      

    

Trump at Davos Redux

    This writer recently observed a discussion of the Trump administration's foreign policy by Stewart Patrick of the Council on Foreign Relations, a charter member of the Washington foreign policy establishment. The presentation was light on partisan politics and personality attacks and heavy on policy - just what one would want in assessing the opinions which bleed into blather when presented by the Washington Post or MSNBC. The session was disappointing nevertheless. 

    The essence of the argument:

        - Trump supporters do not understand - with a smirk for the unwashed - that the United States is the beneficiary of the world structure (the United Nations; The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; the World Trade Organization; the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; The UN Commission on Human Rights; the precursers to the European Union) that was created by forward looking visionaries after World War II. There are a few flaw in the human rights organizations, but then again too few to mention. 

          - "America First" represents a withdrawal from the position of world leadership, not acknowledging that in order to get the benefit of multinational organizations we need to give up some of our sovereignty.  We do this at our own risk, in that others will fill the void. (The speaker jumps to isolationism, rather than the real essence of Trump's direction - a broad restructuring of international relations to be more in the interest of the United States.) 

        - Foreign engagement in the 21st century must contain a substantial element of support for moral behavior in other countries, and encouragement of self-determination for ethnic groups like the Kurds. It is hard to define when it is appropriate to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries, and it is best done through the United Nations, but there is an obligation to prevent extreme and large scale denial of human rights.   

        - There have been many transgressions by the Trump administration - withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement (which would have transferred millions of heavy industry jobs to China and India, and billions of US dollars into third world "green" projects); scuttling of the Trans Pacific Partnership; a demand to renegotiate NAFTA; escalating global income inequality; and immigration policies based on racism and the desire of white America to keep control which they must inevitably lose. One becomes accustomed to these arguments, living in San Francisco. 

    The interviewer did have one plaintive question. She had heard a woman on TV complain about how the United States had been taken advantage of. How could anyone think that, given our position at the top of the heap? There is no answer from the Washington foreign policy elite. The question is nonsensical, and not worthy of a response. Well, had this been a debate or if the speaker had demonstrated some curiosity as to why some half of all Americans would disagree with his exposition, there would have been three answers. 

    1. The economic answer. Over the past three decades, under Republican presidents and Democratic presidents, we have transferred millions of manufacturing jobs abroad as the trade deficit has grown from some $100 billion per year to $700 billion. Major spurs include China's entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001 and the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994.  Hundreds of millions of people in China and Mexico have moved out of poverty - a good thing - but millions of Americans have slid backward. Boardroom arguments about "free trade" and "fair trade" have nothing to do with "balanced trade" which is necessary for the American workers to feel that the system is working for them. Trump gets it; the foreign policy establishment does not. 

    2. The "world policeman" answer. Since at least the Korean War, the United States has been the country to lead the response when "free world" countries have been under attack. Post 9/11 we have been engaged in endless wars in the Middle East - Afghanistan; Kuwait; Iraq; Syria; Yemen; Somalia. We spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined on the military. The NATO countries are committed to spend at least 3% of GDP on defense; most do not. Our national debt has reached $20 trillion. The American people are tired of both the loss of American lives and the money. Trump gets it; the foreign policy establishment does not. 

    3. The decisive businessman answer. Prior presidents, particularly Barack Obama, did not deal with problems. The North Koreans began their nuclear program in earnest in the 90's; presidents Clinton, George W Bush, and Obama kicked the can down the road to the point where it must be dealt with on Trump's watch.  Trump inherited the war against ISIS  and successfully empowered his generals to destroy the enemy, without getting sucked further into Syria.  Trump has resisted any temptation to solve the problems of other countries - Yemen; Libya; Venezuela. Trump gets it; the foreign policy establishment does not.  

    Media coverage of the President's visit to Davos will be largely negative, more so in Europe than in the United States. It is the perfect setting for him to explain his direction to the "swells" who think that they run the world. Hopefully some will be listening. 

                                                                                                        -----

    This week's video is a compilation of White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders' highlights for 2017.  A bit long, but so much fun. 

www.RightinSanFrancisco.com 

Pondering Pakistan

    On January 1, President Trump's first tweet of the year complained that the United States has received nothing but "lies and deceit" in return for the over $33 billion in aid it has provided to Pakistan over the past 16 years. Lets expand on that. 

    Why do we care about Pakistan? 

        - A brief history: Since largely Hindu India and largely Muslim Pakistan gained independence from Britain after World War II, they have fought wars in 1947, 1965, 1971, and 1999, mostly over the divided territory of Kashmir.  During the Cold War, India largely aligned with the Soviet Union and Pakistan aligned with the United States as a member of the Central Treaty Organization (along with Turkey, Iran, and Britain.) Both have been nuclear powers since the 70s.  Pakistani political leadership has been complicated, with US-trained military leaders alternating with the Bhutto clan, punctuated by the assasination of Benazir Bhutto in 2007, and the removal of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on corruption charges in 2017. The current prime minister, Shamid Abbasi, has assumed office during a downturn in relations with the United States and has done little to change direction.    

        - The administration's logic, as presented as part of an Afghan-centric policy statement on August 21: Osama bin Laden hid in Abbotobad, Pakistan, raising conjecture that elements of the Pakistani government must have known.  The Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist group which killed 164 people in Mumbai, India in 2008 was based in Pakistan. The Pakistani intelligence service has long supported the radical Islamist Haqqani terrorist network which supports the Taliban in Afghanistan.  In August, the Trump administration raised the possibility of supporting Indian involvement in Afghanistan as a prod to the Pakistanis. Little has apparently changed in Pakistani support or overall result as the US military strategy in Afghanistan has modestly expanded. The result - if they won't help, why give them almost $1 billion per year and favorable priorities in acquiring US military equipment? 

        - A broader view: 

            -- Pakistan is also the target of fundamentalist Muslim terrorist attacks, with a dozen in 2017 claiming hundreds of lives. Our greatest strategic objective in South Asia should be the prevention of terrorists acquiring access to Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Afghanistan posesses no strategic significance for the United States, yet we are in the 15th year of that unsuccessful war. The only reason for our maintaining a military presence there - aside from not wanting to admit defeat - is to be "in the neighborhood" if the nuclear stockpiles are threatened. 

            --  Pakistan is in the back yard of Russia and China, and forms a key component of Xi Jin Ping's $900 billion "Belt and Road" infrastructure project which is designed to build roads, power plants, pipelines, and port facilities to connect western China to the Middle East, South Asia, and eastern Europe. (Some $60 billion of China-financed projects have been identified in Pakistan. India is opting out.) Conversely, we are $20 trillion in debt and need to prioritize. Trump has the right instincts, aligning with the Patrick Buchanan wing of the Republican Party.  

        - The broader broad perspective: Southwest Asia is complicated, and a reasonable outcome depends not only on what is done, but how it is done. Can we support some "rational actors" in Pakistan at a minimal cost? Can there be some trust? By whom and how is the message delivered?  Fortunately, unlike many other countries where US ambassadors have not been appointed and senior Washington staff positions remain open, we do have an experienced ambassador in David Hale who apparently has a good relationship with Secretary Tillerson, and some latitude with the President, coupled with an experienced Deputy Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asia, Alice G. Wells. They will share the unenviable task of managing the retreat.     

    The punch line. Trump is right (as he often is) in strongly challenging the status quo in the region and in the State Department, but he would have better odds of success if he did not publicly push a potential ally against the wall (as he also often does.) Look for increasing Chinese influence as we retrench.  

                                                                                                    ----- 

    We'll start 2018 with a hilarious clip from Andrew Klavan, who I belatedly discovered in 2017. 

bill bowen - 1/5/17

The Real Pivot Toward Asia

   Back in 2009, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made much of their "pivot toward Asia". After all, the country had its first president with Asian roots. Obama was born in Hawaii and spent his adolescent years with his mother and step-father in Indonesia. The Middle East was "so George W Bush", and the 21st Century belonged to a rising China. So, how did that go? 

    One "liberal, internationalist" pro-Clinton observer, Foreign Policy Magazine, summarized the results as follows:

        - One success: the establishment of an enduring framework for engagement with Southeast Asia, particularly Vietnam. Enough time had passed since the Vietnam War, and China's neighbors were looking for a counterweight to the bully next door. 

        - One sub-par performance: Whereas President Bush had handed off strong and trusting relationships with China, India, and Japan, President Obama left a "very tense" relationship with China and and uncertainty in the Japanese government about American reliability. After initially recognizing China's "core interests" in Asia, Obama increased American military presence in Australia and the Philippines, then endorsed Xi Jinping's "New Model of Great Power Relations". The neighbors understood the goal of a China - America duopoly with their interests far secondary.  

        - One lost opportunity: trade. Much effort was put into the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement - involving twelve countries, but not China - which would have reduced tariff and other barriers to trade, and established a dispute resolution forum. Opposed by unions and Trump's Make America Great Again supporters, it was disavowed by both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The trade deficit with China grew 53% from $226 billion in 2009 to $347 billion in 2016. 

        - One dangerous incomplete: Per Foreign Policy, relative to North Korea "The Obama administration realized the futility of diplomatic deals early on, though it never came up with a policy to replace the previous approach." 

    Comparable appraisals of the Obama Administration's failed pivot to Asia are shared by the (British) Guardian, the Japan Times, Bloomberg, and The Diplomat. By all accounts, Donald Trump inherited a losing hand. 

    President Trump's current two week trip to Asia should be seen in the context of events over the past 10 months, particularly the decimation of ISIS and the quiet rolling out of a realpolitik strategy in the Middle East. With American advisers playing a stronger role, modified Rules of Engagement, and alignment with effective partners, ISIS has been driven from virtually all of their territory in Iraq and Syria, tens of thousands of ISIS combatants have been killed, and the exodus of refugees to Europe has slowed to a trickle.  With little attention, the administration has sided with the central government in Baghdad over the independence aspirations of the Kurds. Iraq, done. Similarly, the administration has acknowledged that Assad has won the 6 1/2 year civil war in Syria, with just a few details to work out. We'll support Saudi Arabia in their broader contest with Iran, but it is largely their fight. 

    Trump has also done much preparation for the current trip. His first meeting after his election was with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in November. They met again in February, and again, along with South Korean President Moon Jae-in, in September. They golf together; they seem to like each other. Along the way he met with Chinese Premier Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago in April and in Hamburg, Germany in July. If personal diplomacy works, Trump has done the groundwork. 

    The issues are straightforward, and Trump articulates the American position clearly. 

        1. North Korea must not be allowed to take the final steps in developing nuclear missiles. A preemptive strike is on the table. A Chinese embargo - or political intervention - would be preferable. 

        2. The United States cannot continue to live with a $350 billion trade deficit with China. Particular focus will be on aviation where China seeks to become a third major international manufacturer alongside Boeing and European Airbus, and Boeing has entered agreements to manufacture aircraft in China and share research and development. Several deals - such as a $1 billion supply agreement for American beef - are being formalized. Unlike with President Obama, the agenda does not include much on climate change and human rights. 

        3. The rest of the trip is about reassuring allies, and developing bargaining chips with China. 

    Despite the distractions of the swamp in Washington, Trump has a clear vision of American objectives in Asia, a willingness to prioritize the region, the personal interaction skills to make his points, and a phenomenal amount of energy. Godspeed. 

                                                                                            -----

This week's video of the ceremony preceding the 2005 Superbowl is a reminder of how much has changed in just 12 years. 

bill bowen - 10/10/17

Where the Hell is Tongo Tongo?

    One has to be bemused by the US media of all stripes. Four US soldiers are killed during a reconnaissance mission near the village of Tongo Tongo, Niger, and there are two lines of discussion:

        - Whether Donald Trump was appropriately sensitive when he called the widow of one of those killed, and the subsequent efforts of an "empty barrell" congresswoman to disparage the White House Chief of Staff who happens to be a retired Marine four star general and the father of a soldier killed in Afghanistan. 

        - A detailed critique of military tactics for managing air support with the French in West Africa, as if the reporters were better judges of what is reasonable than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

   And the question which is hardly asked: What the Hell are we doing in Tongo Tongo in the first place. A sober perspective. 

    Legal Authority. 

    Following extended conflicts in Korea and Vietnam without formal declarations of war, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution over President Nixon's veto in 1973. The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United Sates. Some presidents have honored the resolution - the Marines' presence in Lebanon in 1982-83; George HW Bush's legislative approval for the First Gulf War; President Clinton's withdrawal from Somalia in 1992. Some have not - Clinton's bombing in Kosovo in 1999; Barack Obama's aerial war against Muammar Gaddafi in Libya in 2011. 

    More problematic is the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks which passed through Congress and was signed by President George W. Bush a week after the attacks with only a few hours of debate. Ostensibly aimed at al Queda, and maybe the Taliban government of Afghanistan which provided them sanctuary, the authorization has been used by presidents George W Bush, Barack Obama, and now Donald Trump to wage wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya without the approval of a Congress which has not had the courage to exercise it's clear constitutional role. 

    Over the years there have been several Senators and Congress members who have advocated a review of the original War Powers Resolution or, more particularly, the 2001 authorization - Jeff Flake; Bob Corker; Rand Paul; John McCain; Barbara Lee. Thus far, neither chamber has been willing to open the debate, but McCain is back at it following the Niger ambush. 

    Scope of the Problem

    Fundamentally, ISIS (like Saddam Hussein) had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, there has been a bitter disagreement on strategy  between al Queda (which is committed to attacking the "far enemy" in the West), and ISIS (which is committed to establishing a caliphate in Muslim territories, killing mostly Muslims in the process.) Both have sought the allegiance of Islamic radicals around the world, with ISIS' success in 2014 and 2015 resulting in a flood of foreign recruits, and many claims of allegiance by local leaders who wanted to share the authority conveyed by Abu Bakkar's success in Syria and Iraq. 

    There are big groups. Boko Haram, based in Nigeria has resulted in the displacement of over 2 million people over West Africa in the last 15 years. Somalia-centered Al Shabaab, which has some 8000 fighters, is opposed by an alliance of African Union countries who support the United Nations endorsed government. Jemaah Islamiyah  which envisions a caliphate in Southeast Asia stretching through the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, and southern Thailand. Each has splinter groups, and has morphed in title, geography, and ideology as dynamic leaders have risen and been killed.  

    It is a mistake to think of these groups as disconnected or subject to the boundaries of states as defined by the United Nations.  A significant portion of the defenders of Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria were not Arabs; while those battlefields wind down, there is little appetite on the part of their home countries for anything but to have them killed in place. Nevertheless, many of the thousands will escape to Southeast Asia, Central Asia, and sub-Sahara Africa as well as to Europe. The ongoing conflict in West Africa is the indirect result of jihadists being pushed south out of Libya into Mali, which had its own conflicts, and then further south.  The recently concluded battle for Marawi City in the southern Philippines cost the lives of some 165 government troops and 1000 mostly local insurgents. The jihadist-inspired problem is global. 

    The Alternatives

    While it is better to fight our enemies "over there" rather than "over here", there has to be a set of reasonable priorities, debated by the Congress and shared with the public. It will be hard to have a balanced discussion with an administration led by retired generals as Secretary of Defense, Chief of Staff, and National Security Adviser, but it is worth a try.   

    One observer's opinion: Anything that directly threatens the homeland or one of our key allies goes to the top of the list.  Ditto any proliferation of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Slightly down the list is anything that threatens our fundamental interests, such as free passage, cyber security, or the world financial system. That leaves room to confront North Korea and Iran, Russia's moves in eastern Europe or China's in the South China Sea. It covers piracy on the Horn of Africa, drug operations in Latin America, and any insurgent threats to friendly governments.  

    The corollary question is methods. Intelligence sharing and training are good. Boots on the ground are bad. It is best if the war fighting is left to the military, and the CIA is confined to intelligence gathering. And as for Blackwater founder Erik Prince's suggestion that mercenary armies would be cheaper and less politically difficult, that sounds a lot like the latter days of Rome. 

    The end of the war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria is fast approaching.  Assad has effectively won the long Syrian civil war; the Kurds and the Iraqi government will have to sort out their territorial relationship. We seem committed to the never-ending Afghan war. Beyond that, the ambush at Tongo Tongo should serve to ring a bell - how and where should the United States be engaged in a confusing, tumultuous world where armed groups are competing for local power, sometimes under a broader Islamic umbrella?  Without a universal draft, the question is far from the minds of the average American - perhaps the grieving widow of Sergeant LaDavid Johnson has done the country a favor by demanding to know not only what the tactics were, but what the mission was. 

                                                                                                        ----- 

     This week's bonus - thanks to an alert reader in Connecticut - is the telephone number, (800) 342-5283, for one of the National Football League's largest advertisers, Anheuser Busch, seeking input from the public on the league's policy on political protests. 

bill bowen - 10/27/17

   

   

    

   

    

Trump's Noteworthy ISIS Victory

      Nearly absent from the pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times - or the Wall Street Journal and Fox News for that matter - is the grinding success against ISIS which has been unfolding across Iraq and Syria. The Never Trumpers will argue that this is just the natural unfolding of the Obama strategy, but this is not the president who announced year-in-advance timelines for withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan, who drew a meaningless red line in Syria, who called ISIS the Jayvees, and who refused to acknowledge Islamic terrorism. Substantial differences are responsible for the success: 

       1. Without significantly changing the rules of engagement designed to protect civilians, Trump has empowered the military commanders in the theater to make operational decisions. This has entailed embedding liaison officers with Iraqi and Syrian Kurd forces to coordinate front-line intelligence and call in air strikes. The Americans do not initiatie direct "boots on the ground" combat, but are sometimes engaged. American casualties have been few; the ability to bring air power to bear has been decisive.    

       2. Coalition forces have adopted a "no escape" policy. ISIS-controlled cities have been surrounded and escape routes cut off, leaving ISIS fighters with a choice between surrender and death. (Some admittedly get both.)  The bad effect - resistance is stiff with heavy civilian and coalition casualties. The good effect - ISIS combatants in Iraq are being eliminated in Iraq rather than being allowed to survive to fight in Syria; few are surviving to return home to fight in Europe, Russia, Kazakhstan, or Pakistan.  Claims of 20,000 or more ISIS fighters killed cannot be substantiated, but are reasonable, given the firepower and targeting. 

      3. In the complicated patchwork of Iraq and Syria, the Trump administration has adopted a "my enemy's enemy is my friend" policy on the battlfield. In Iraq, Iran-oriented militias have taken blocking posiitons outside of the major cities while the Iraqis have done the urban fighting; In Syria, we have agreed to "deconfliction zones" where Russian-supported Assad forces have pressured ISIS from the south while (against Turkey's wishes) we have equipped the Kurds who have attacked the ISIS Capital at Raqqa from the north. This is quite unlike the Obama administration which was paralyzed by the conflicting objectives of the Turks, the Iranians, the Russians, and the Sunni Arabs. For Trump's generals it is simple - destroy ISIS.

    The results since Trump's innauguration:

        - After long delays, the liberation of Mosul - the second largest city in Iraq with some 2,000,000 people - was completed in July;

        - The Free Syrian Army (largely the Kurds) has recaptured half of the ISIS capital in Raqqa, Syria, anticipating complete victory in a few months;

        - The Russians and the US have agreed to enforce operational areas and procedures to avoid direct conflict while focusing on the defeat of ISIS. Assad's forces follow the Russian lead; the Free Syrian Army follows ours.        

    And what will follow:

        - Mosul will require $1 billion of rebuilding infrastructure and housing. With the temporary disloction of some 800,000 residents and the death of thousands, a generation has been traumatized. Years of school were missed under ISIS rule; everybody has witnessed public executions and general brutality; and the nine month campaign brought starvation and use of civilians as "human shields". The Shia-dominated government in Baghdad appears to understand that leadership of the rebuilding must be led by local Sunnis, but the task is immense.  

        - The tragic Syrian civil war with its 400,000 civilian deaths, 6 million internally dislaced, and 5 million external refugees has real hope of being over. While the "Assad must go" refrain has occasional resurrection, it is unlikely. Mopping up will require agreement on who bears the brunt of cleaning up ISIS elements who have retreated to the Deir Ezzor region of eastern Syria - and gets the oil there; who will hunt down the remnants of the al Queda affiliate; how much of the territory that they have captured will the Kurds be allowed to keep; and what form of government will the US-organized Arab Free Syrian Army establish. The political aftermath can be worked out if Trump is allowed to deal with Putin. Those seeking justice can keep waiting. 

        - The global ISIS brand has been badly tarnished. The great majority of the thousands of zealots who flocked to fight for the caliphate in 2014, 2015, and 2016 have achieved their martyrdom, but their earthly reward was transitory. Few new recruits are arriving. The affiliates in Africa, Southeast Asia, and South Asia who pledged their allegiance to Caliph Abu Bakr al-Bagdadi (who may have himself been killed in a Russian airstrike) will return to their local grievances. 

        - In all likelihood, the Trump administration will not be concerned about the conservative/authoritarian direction of  government in Turkey or Egypt, the tactics of the Saudi's for restoring order in Yemen or Quatar, or the many other ancient squabbles in the region. Unlike the Bush and Obama years, we will not be there to spread the Enlightenment or foster an Islamic Reformation. 

     Now, about North Korea,,,,,

                                                                        -----

    This week's bonus video is a second version of Trump speechwriter, Stephen Miller, explaining the Trump policy on legal immigration which places the interests of low wage Americans above those of potential immigrants. 

bill bowen - 8/11/17

Pondering North Korea

    The last seven decades have not treated Asia kindly: the India/Pakistan wars of 1947, 1965, 1971, and 1999; Mao's regime (40 million killed); the Korean War (5 million killed); the Vietnam War (3 million killed); Cambodia's nightmare (1.5 million killed); ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. Each lost life is a tragedy, but the scale of anything in Europe or the Americas pales in comparison. It is through the Asian lens that we should view the escalating crisis with North Korea. 

    First, the public really doesn't know what is happening behind the scenes. Kim Jong Un had his uncle, and former regent, killed because his relationship to China posed a potential threat. He had his half brother, who lived in Chinese Macao, killed because he was  a potential dynastic heir. We don't know if there was more to the tragic case of Otto Warmbler - released so that his death could become an international spectacle. In any case, the CIA and its Chinese counterpart are doing all that they can to figure out the fissures within Kim's hierarchy, whether there are any pressure points to be exploited, and who would prevail if the Glorious Leader were removed. The New York Times and CNN are not on the distribution list. 

    For years, the consensus has been that, by virtue of their predominant trading relationship, the reluctant Chinese are in the best position to influence North Korea's behavior. Let's consider things from a Chinese perspective. While we see only risk, they also see opportunity. 

          -Since the end of WW II, the United States has been the preeminent power in the western Pacific, with the 7th Fleet based in Yokosuka Japan; strategic territorial possessions in Guam, the Mariana Islands, and American Samoa; the guarantor of China's arch rival Japan, South Korea, breakaway province Taiwan, and the Philippines; long term military cooperation with Australia, Thailand, and Singapore. It is in China's interest to demonstrate that we are a paper tiger, or to negotiate away some of our military presence and relationships. 

        - This is a time of unusual internal weakness for the United States and its allies. The United States can assemble world leaders to discuss sanctions at the United Nations and at the upcoming G20 meeting, but the Trump administration cannot count on American unity with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Shumer, much less uber-hawk John McCain and the Obama / Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. If the Republicans cannot agree on how to replace Obamacare, how can the various factions agree on what concessions to make to the North Koreans, or what military measures to take?  

        - About 2 million ethnic Koreans live in China, largely near the border.  With populations of 1.4 billion in China, 25 million in North Korea, and 50 million in South Korea, the number is relatively small, but the Chinese make a major talking point of risk of a mass influx of refugees in the event of destabilization in North Korea. More importantly, North Korea serves as a buffer between China and the more prosperous and economically assertive South Korea, and must not be allowed to be absorbed into the larger and more prosperous South.  

        - The real risk to China is indirect - not that North Korea will aim its nuclear missiles at Beijing, but that they will prompt a nuclear arms race which includes Japan. Avoiding that is a modest priority for the United States,and a major requirement for the Chinese. 

        -  With a 23 mile border with North Korea along the Sea of Japan, Russia also has a horse in this race. This week's summit meeting between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jin Ping concluded amid statements about the "best relationship ever between the countries", the "most important strategic partner", the need for North Korea to suspend testing and the US to suspend military exercises. On July 7, Putin will let President Trump know his price for exerting potential leverage on Xi and Kim. 

    After 25 years of failed diplomatic initiatives - direct negotiations; "Group of Six" negotiations; trade offers; economic and personal sanctions - President Trump is left with a short list of bad options. 

        1. More of the same with the likelihood that Kim will develop a significant stockpile of nuclear weapons capable of hitting South Korea and Japan, as well as intercontinental nuclear missiles aimed at Alaska and Hawaii within a year or less. The gate is fast closing. Western sanctions have no effect. 

        2. A Chinese boycott of North Korea severe enough to cause Kim to give up his missile and nuclear programs, or more likely, to precipitate regime change. In exchange for Chinese action, the United States might be expected to support Chinese rights in the South China Sea, or perhaps to abandon Taiwan.  A Russian voice might also need to be bought. 

        3. A "decapitation attack" - perhaps an assassination; perhaps a targeted military strike. This would have to be coupled with a concurrent strong outreach to alternative military leaders. And a prayer. 

        4. A "counter force" attack designed to take out the nuclear and missile sites, as well as most of the 1000 artillery pieces aimed at Seoul. The Pentagon's assessment is probably not much different from that of numerous think tanks - with 10 million living about 35 miles from the North Korean border in Seoul, the first week toll would be in the hundreds of thousands, despite thousands of bomb shelters and decades of preparation.

    For what it is worth, the South Korean stock market - voting for Option 1 -  is up 18% Year to Date, substantiating Karl Marx' claim that "the last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope". If Option 2 fails within the next month, some version of Option 3 seems most reasonable. 

                                                                                            -----

    Continuing today's theme of gloom and destruction, this week's video shows the condition of Mosul's Old City after months of fighting to destroy ISIS.  

bill bowen - 7/7/17

 

   

    

    

        

Intelligence: Back to the Shadows

    There was a time not too long ago when intelligence - the covert gathering and synthesis of information on the nation's enemies and potential enemies - was conducted in the shadows. The public didn't want to know. The intelligence community liked anonymity. Senior political leaders talked about what they were doing with the information, not how it was collected. The Good Old Days. 

     Several things changed to get to the point where President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper gave the "least untruthful" answer that he could think of when asked in a Senate hearing whether the NSA was collecting information on millions of Americans, and where Obama's Director of Central Intelligence John Brennan and National Security Director Susan Rice orchestrated a program of NSA spying on the Trump team by targeting selected foreigners for wiretaps, "unmasking" the Americans in intercepted conversations, and encouraging wide dissemination and leaks of their identities. Some milestones on the downward journey: 

    1. The intelligence community - with it's conclusion that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction" - became a convenient politicized target for opponents of the Iraq War. The broader expansion of the intelligence component is clearly explained in Gen. Michael Hayden's "Playing to the Edge", which pridefully explains the most extensive legal rationalizations of data collection on foreigners and Americans, rendition of prisoners to Black Sites overseas, and the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. 

    2. Massive breaches of electronic data became commonplace. Edward Snowden "outed" the NSA's extensive global eavesdropping network in 2013 before seeking sanctuary in Russia. Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning provided over 700,000 Department of Defense and State Department memoranda to Wikileaks' Julian Assange who published them all in 2010. Snowden remains in Moscow, the frequent subject of laudatory articles in publications such as Vanity Fair.   Manning, after a sex change operation, was popular enough on the Left to have his sentence commuted by President Obama.   

    3. Hillary Clinton's e-mail scandal became as famous for its blatant disregard for the protection of classified information as for the substance of her advocacy of "open borders", or the corruption of the Clinton Foundation. Half of the political establishment spent 2015 and 2016 minimizing the importance of keeping secret stuff secret. 

    But there is hope. While James Comey has spent the past two years giving press conferences to explain the status of FBI investigations and his perspective on leading politicians, and Clapper and Brennan have become regulars on the Sunday talk shows to talk about the mis-deeds of the Trump administration, the new Director of National Intelligence and the new Director of the Central Intelligence Agency have chosen to retreat back into the shadows, doing the mundane, detailed work of rebuilding the strongest intelligence capabilities in the world. Little has been heard from DNI Dan Coates, a highly respected former member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, or CIA Director Mike Pompeo, a former Tea Party Congressman from Kansas. And that is good. 

    Hobbes was right - life in the state of nature is "solitary, nasty, brutish and short".  It is important that our leaders know if Iran is violating the terms of their nuclear development program. It is important that our leaders know whether there is any hope of political change in North Korea. It is important that our leaders know how ISIS will evolve after it has lost the territory of the caliphate in Syria and Iraq. It is important that our leaders understand the operations of the cartels which reach from Central America into the United States. It is important that our leaders understand global military, political, economic, and ideological trends. Getting the leadership of the intelligence community out of the Washington's political quagmire and back to their oath to "defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic" would be one of the major achievements of the early Trump years.  

                                                                                                    -----

    This week's video offers clarity for those who have been confused by the Washington investigations. For those seeking a new voice in political comedy, Andrew Klavan certainly belongs on the short list. 

bill bowen - 6/1/17 

Trump's Big Test: North Korea

    In 2002 President George W. Bush declared an "Axis of Evil" - three outlaw nations who were bent on nuclear proliferation. He took care of Saddam Hussein's Iraq (a long story). President Obama reached an accommodation with the mullahs in Iran (another long story). President Trump has been left to deal with perhaps the most recalcitrant, Kim Jong Un's North Korea at a time when the clock is running out. 

Known Knowns

    - Since 2006, North Korea has conducted five nuclear tests, with the most recent having a strength about equal to the bomb used at Hiroshima. A sixth is imminent. They withdrew from the Non-proliferation Treaty in 2003, and from "6 party talks" with Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, and the United States in 2005.  Beyond size, their emphasis is on miniaturization and controls for fitting on a missile. 

    - North Korea has been testing missiles for four decades, with recent efforts including a satellite launch, a submarine launch, and multiple concurrent launches. Some have been aimed toward Japan; some have failed - perhaps with American assistance. 

    - North Korea 's military encompasses about 1,000,000 troops - twice that of South Korea. Nevertheless, the South's technology is far superior, and they do have 28,500 American troops in South Korea as a "tripwire". Many of North Korea's 21,000 artillery pieces are aimed at Seoul, some 35 miles from the border.  

    - Kim Jong Un is one bad dude. He killed his former mistress. He killed his uncle, who had strong China connections, and who acted as regent after Jong Un's father's death. He killed his half brother who lived in Macao with Chinese support. 

    - The United Nations has imposed six rounds of increasingly severe sanctions against North Korea since 2006. Some 90% of North Korea's trade is with China which is the predominant supplier of oil, grain, and foreign exchange.

    - Beyond their own threat, missile and nuclear technology offer the impoverished North Koreans a marketable resource to other nations or terrorist groups.  

Known Unknowns

    - In recent decades China has been protective of North Korea, stressing the view that resolution of the nuclear issue could only be accomplished by direct negotiation with the United States. This did not work with the Six Nation Talks a decade ago, or with occasional bi-lateral contacts in the Bush and Obama administrations. Whether President Trump can cajole the Chinese to help is to be determined. At least the official Chinese press is now criticizing the North Koreans openly.  

    - The Chinese and the CIA undoubtedly have plans to replace the Kim dynasty with leaders more amenable to nuclear disarmament. That may be part of why Jong Un's half brother was killed. Realism is unknown.  

    - American war plans undoubtedly include an option for a preemptive attack - with or without the South Koreans. Realism is unknown.  

   As Donald Trump demonstrated with his retaliation for Syrian use of chemical weapons, Barack Obama is retired. As he demonstrated by dropping a 10 kiloton conventional weapon in Afghanistan, we possess major firepower without using nuclear weapons ourselves.  What other characteristics of President Trump might be relevant for this looming crisis?

    - Trump shows significant deference to the military, appointing generals to the Homeland Security, Defense, and National Security Adviser roles as well as the traditional Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Secretary of Defense Mattis is probably the most respected and influential cabinet member - on both sides of the aisle. Correspondingly, State is having their budget cut some 30%, and Rex Tillerson's primary deputy has yet to be named. Military answers could come to the fore.   

    - Trump is a negotiator. He has had a robust, public discussion with Xi Jinping of China in which he offered to concede on high priority foreign trade issues in exchange for help with North Korea. He has deployed anti-missile defenses to South Korea, with Japan probably to come soon. He has offered to meet directly with Kim Jong Un, even to the point of calling it an "honor". 

    - Trump can delegate. He has sent Vice President Pence, Director of National Intelligence Coats, Secretary of State Tillerson, and Secretary of Defense Mattis to talk with our allies in South Korea and Japan as well as with the Chinese. This has been a clear priority for the fledgling administration. 

    - Trump is a risk taker. He insisted on a House vote on the repeal and replacement of Obamacare even though it would cost some House seats, and might well not make it through the Senate. He has four bankruptcies on his business resume. He takes on all comers - the media, the Democrats, Republican opponents. He goes big.  

    The likely outcome? Rex Tillerson expresses the administration's policy -  the approach of the past 20 years has failed; all options are on the table.  And for those capitalists who view markets as predictors of geopolitical events,  the South Korean stock market hit an all time high on May 4 - even though it may not exist in a few months. A good short opportunity if ever there was one. 

                                                                                            -----

    This week's video is a CNN commentary on Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez' gutter language rants. 

bill bowen - 5/5/17 

The Trump Doctrine, v1.0

    Eventually some Harvard professor or New York Times editorial board member will write the Establishment's definitive book on the unifying principles of the Trump Doctrine for international affairs. They will depart from the current #Resist meme that Trump's foreign policy is just a bunch of impulsive, uninformed decisions born of inexperience and a flawed personality. They most likely will not develop the theme that Barack Obama left a mess after eight years of withdrawing American power. What follows is a first draft - version 1.0.

    Premise: Hobbes had it largely right - the world is filled with inequality, injustice, and immoral leaders who will respond only to force. We cannot fix it all, but it is in our self interest to try to fix those things which will affect us. At the low end, that means preventing attacks on us; at the high end it means supporting international organizations and norms which keep us safe. There is plenty of room for international engagement in an America First philosophy. 

    There are several levels about how international problems should be approached. Each needs to be approached with clear eyes; the accumulating malaise since the current world order was established in the mid- twentieth century needs to be fixed. .

        -  The concept of the United Nations is fine, but the veto power of Russia, China, the UK, France, and the United States makes it ineffective for most important issues. (Obama's acceptance of the condemnation of Israel was an exception, but demonstrates the point.) The bureaucracy has gotten fat. When there is an urgent issue the Security Council should be given a chance, but with a short fuse before looking for other avenues. Witness the strike in Syria after Russia blocked action condemning Assad's use of chemical weapons. 

        - Regional alliances are important for containing our major geopolitical rivals - Russia and China - and for combating Islamic terrorism. We provide the dominant amount of money, intelligence, equipment, and leadership for these alliances. In many cases we provide a large part of the manpower. This needs to change - the Europeans need to fund their own defense at agreed levels; the Japanese and other Asian partners need to do more; Saudi Arabia and other Sunni governments need to take the lead in terms of money and troops in combating ISIS, al Queda, and whatever comes next. We will provide active support, as in the current battles in Mosul, Iraq and Raqqa, Syria. 

        - Spheres of influence are important. The major powers need to patrol their neighborhoods. China needs to take care of North Korea. The Europeans need to stand up to Russia. 

        - Where others will not act, and our national interests are threatened, we will act. Our national interests include enforcement of international agreements on development and use of weapons of mass destruction - nuclear, chemical, and biological. (The WMD term has been badly overused - the issue is nuclear, chemical, and biological.) Chemical in Syria; nuclear in North Korea. 

    Within that framework there are a couple of policy adjustments that have not yet received the administration's attention:

        1. Afghanistan. By now we have forgotten why we have sacrificed a generation of soldiers and billions of dollars in this landlocked quagmire on the other side of the world, and still have 8400 troops there as the next "fighting season" approaches and the Taliban are expanding their areas of control.  Bin Laden was there - and he was killed in Pakistan. They were big opium exporters - and they still are. Their girls were not educated - and now some are. For Obama it was a chance to show that Bush was wrong in Iraq, and he was not a wimp. Our real national interest in South Asia is the protection of the nuclear arms in Pakistan, not choosing among the warlords of this graveyard of empires.

        2. Central America. Our illegal immigration problem is partly about economic migrants from Mexico seeking a better life, but it is also about true refugees from decades of civil war, gang warfare, and corruption in Nicaragua, Honduras, and El Salvador. As we deport these immigrants to Mexico, their "country of entry", they really cannot go home.  Europe has a problem with at-risk refugees from the Middle East; our comparison is Central America. The root problem needs to be fixed. 

    Trump has a habit of speaking clearly where our leaders have spoken in muted tones for decades. After the audible gasp, it is useful to note that he is right - Obama did not believe in American world leadership; a huge gap was created; and there will be a time of challenge while Trump reestablishes America's credibility. Fortunately, his actions - from demanding that the Europeans pay their committed share for their defense, to being willing to make trade concessions for Chinese action on North Korea, to punishing Assad for use of chemical weapons - fit a pattern that is part of Making America Great Again.

                                                                    ----- 

    This week's video is Charles Krautheimer's commentary on Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice. To review the bidding: the administration - unsuccessfully except for one occasion - sought wiretapping authority on Trump campaign members to find a Russia connection; they oversaw wiretapping of foreigners who might be talking to Trump campaign members; they exposed the names such as Mike Flynn who turned up; and they changed the rules for distributing intelligence information to ensure that people in 17 agencies had access to the reports which were subsequently leaked to the New York Times and others.

bill bowen - 4/14/17 

The Donald's (Suggested) United Nations Speech

    The Donald loves talking to crowds. Having conquered the Republican challengers and Hillary, he will soon be up to the final group of non-believers - the United Nations General Assembly. Here is a suggestion for what he should say - to be delivered with a teleprompter. 

    " Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen: Welcome to New York. What a great city. We love our city, and we love hosting you here. Great people. A great City. 

    " I really appreciate the opportunity to talk with you directly to explain our perspective on the world - you have heard much about me and my priorities in the context of a contentious political campaign and through the distorted lens of a media which openly favored my opponent. I hope that you will listen with an open mind, and that today will mark a new beginning. A commitment to work together.  

    "Let's celebrate the fact that the last 70 plus years have been a period of relative peace and prosperity. After World War II the world leaders put together a network of political, economic, and military institutions which have supported stability in the face of huge population growth and technological advance - the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, military alliances, and international courts to oversee voluntary international agreements. The United States has been a major - actually the major - advocate and supporter in these efforts to keep the world safe and prosperous. We will remain so. 

    "But in three regards, the direction of the system is not sustainable, and the United States will be making course corrections to ensure longer term stability and prosperity. In some regards we have lost our way and taken the easy path; we cannot do this any longer. 

        "First, it is a basic responsibility of every government to protect its borders.  In the past few decades we have lost control of our southern border and failed to keep track of visitors in our country on visas. We now are home to millions who have entered the United States illegally, and millions more who entered legally, but did not honor their commitment to leave after a defined period. This puts our citizens at risk of attacks by terrorists who are committed to harm us. It puts us at risk of criminals who would harm our people and our society. It puts our workers at risk of being displaced by substantially  lower-paid economic migrants. It creates an under-class living in the shadows, fearful of exposure, and ripe for exploitation. As a top priority for the Trump administration, we will be securing our borders and dealing humanely with those millions who are in the United States illegally. We ask your help in restoring a system of cooperation where your citizens do not find it necessary to leave their homes, and where American laws are respected. 

    "Second, we believe in free, fair, and balanced trade, but are no longer able to sustain trading relationships which result in annual deficits of $600 billion or more. This is not good for our financial system; it is not good for our manufacturing capabilities; it is not good for our workers. If we are smart, we will address this together now while we have time to make gradual, but decided adjustments. The goal will be to eliminate all large chronic trade imbalances with our partners by increasing exports of things where we enjoy an advantage - agriculture; energy; high-end manufacturing; financial services - and by reducing import of those things which we can efficiently make here. This will require creativity and negotiation. It will require understanding that the current system cannot continue. It will require acceptance that the game has changed.

    "Third, the United States has been expected for too long to act as the world's policeman. This is not good for the United States and, frequently, it is not good for other countries which are having difficulty establishing the basic structures of government. Many in this Assembly have been partners in this effort - as part of peacekeeping efforts in Africa and the Balkans; as part of internationally-sanctioned support for struggling democracies such as Afghanistan; as allies supporting stability along the borders between major nations. There will be two hallmarks of the Trump administration in this regard: deployment of American resources will reflect a clear understanding of America's interests; and the cost of the American engagement will be fairly shared with any country receiving the benefit of our protection. This policy should not be seen as a sign of weakness or abandonment of our friends. Rather, it reflects the reality that even the strongest nation on earth cannot and should not carry the burden of preserving peace and liberty in all the corners of the earth. Each of your governments should be expected to look out for the well being of your people, to pay your fair share of the cost of maintaining international order, and to work toward good relationships with your neighbors.  

    "There are two subjects of pressing importance where you will see an increased American focus:

        - Radical Islamic terrorism must be eradicated. We pledge to work with all international police  and intelligence agencies to root out terrorist cells before they can attack your and our citizens; and, we pledge the necessary leadership and support to international efforts to  destroy al Queda, ISIS, and their offspring. The enemy is not religion; it is terrorism. It must and will be eliminated.

        - Finally, and importantly,  the spread of nuclear weapons must be stopped. There must be inspection and strict enforcement of the agreed limits on Iran's nuclear program, and we look to cooperate with the countries of East Asia to roll back the unacceptable, dangerous, and destabilizing development of nuclear weapons and missile systems by North Korea. The countries in this room have been successful in the goal of containing proliferation for decades, but the last ten years have been a failure. We will not allow this path to continue.   

    " I thank you for your attention. In selecting Secretary of State Tillerson and Ambassador Haley, I have chosen proven executives and leaders who are committed the policies which I have outlined.  They will be clear in their direction and priorities. Together we can make this a better world.

    "Thank you. Enjoy our great city. If you share these goals you will have a strong partner in the United States of America."

    Trump will not get a Nobel Peace Prize. He will perhaps engage in  self-congratulatory hosannas, like Barack Obama or John Kerry. He will provide notice that there is a new sheriff in town. 

                                                                                -----

   This week's Christmas bonus video is a tribute to the great Leonard Cohen who we lost the day before the presidential election. 

bill bowen - 12/22/2016

The Obama Legacy - Part III (International)

     This is Part III (International) of a series of posts on the legacy of President Barack Obama: Part I (Economics) appeared on August 26; Part II (Obamacare) appeared on September 2; Part IV (Race Relations) will appear on September 16. Collectively, the four posts are intended to reflect what future historians will see as the salient points of his presidency.

                                                                                   -----

    The overarching international feature of the Obama presidency is the reduced standing of the United States in the world.

          - The world has always been populated by nations on the rise, trying to supplant the established powers, and since the Reagan era the United States has enjoyed the historical anomaly of been the only superpower. It is natural that Obama was faced with a rising China, a resurgent Russia, Islamic terrorists, and nascent nuclear powers in Iran and North Korea. All had been challenging the United States before Obama, and all would have presented challenges to any American president. 

        - The harshest critics would point to Barack Obama's atypical upbringing (born to a Kenyan father and expatriate mother; raised partly in Jakarta by an Indonesian step-father; tutored by a communist friend of the family in Hawaii) as depicted in his autobiography, "Dreams From My Father", and reflected by his 2009 quote at a NATO meeting in Strasbourg that "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." At various times he has tried to walk the comment back, but it is the essence of what Michael Kinsley called a political gaffe - when a politician tells the truth. The world heard his impression of America.  

        - Obama's training and experience as a community organizer does not transfer well to the Hobbsian world of international relations. The Western Organization of Resource Councils has this to say about community organizers: Organizers listen to their members, who know the community, and let people go at their own pace while also helping them develop the self confidence to try new things. In community organizations, decision making is vested in the members. Big decisions should be made by as many members as possible. In the Libyan conflict this was aptly described by a White House adviser in the New Yorker as as "leading from behind". What may work on the South Side of Chicago does not translate to the Shores of Tripoli. 

    It is hard to find a place in the world where the United States is better respected or more influential after two terms of Barack Obama. 

        -  The administration's primary foreign policy initiative - a "pivot to Asia" - has foundered with the lack of support for the 12-nation Trans Pacific Partnership (essentially an economic alliance to limit China's influence), China's increasingly militarized claims over the South China Sea, and China's sponsorship of international financial institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to rival the western World Bank. The huge decades-long trade imbalance shows few signs of abating. The protocol-conscious Chinese forget to provide a stairway for Obama to deplane when he lands for the G-20 meeting, and - not to be outdone - the president of the Philippines publicly calls Obama a "son of a whore". So much for the pivot.  

       -  In a real sense, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are the father and mother of ISIS - the decision to abandon Iraq; the naive encouragement of rebellion against Assad; the killing of Qaddafi. If there is an Obama Doctrine it must be some combination of give a speech, oust a despot, and hope that the locals can handle the aftermath. JayVees!!  

      - Mitt Romney was ridiculed for calling Russia our main geopolitical opponent.  Hillary Clinton started  2009 by presenting the Russian foreign minister with a "reset" button - which some since-missing State Department functionary mistakenly translated to the Russian word for "overcharged".  Proving Romney right, Putin has annexed the Crimea, supported rebels in eastern Ukraine, expanded militarily and diplomatically in Syria, sided with Iran in nuclear talks, and threatened the former Soviet republics which have moved toward the West. 

        - The list of symbolic events is long - some Obama's fault; some just bad happenstance on his watch: Edward Snowden; Bowe Bergdahl; Benghazi; abandonment of control of the Internet; ransom for prisoners in Iran; the series of snubs by the Israeli prime minister; North Korean missile firings; cyber attacks across the US government; and on and on. 

        - And perhaps most importantly in a long term horizon, the proliferation of nuclear weapons which had been curbed for some four decades accelerated with North Korea actively testing both bombs and missiles, and Iran being given an open path to develop their own. 

    The Barack Obama who was elected in 2008 had the hearts of the Global Left fluttering. After the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Committee set the bar a bit too high, the chairman found that there were no Mulligans. American troops remained in Afghanistan; Guantanamo remained open; bin Laden was killed rather than captured; Libya was bombed; the war in Yemen escalated. But the award was not returned. And the humble president's assertion that his election would stop the rise of the oceans has come to not very much - although he is still giving speeches and making unenforceable international commitments.

    Unfortunately, the statute of limitations on blaming Bush passed a couple of years ago.  

                                                                               -----

      Given all of the hoopla about Donald Trump's racist immigration policies, it is worth a re-visit to this speech by President Bill Clinton in 1995. 

   bill bowen - 9/9/2016 

Policing in Minority Communities: A Perspective

    It is difficult to be a policeman/policewoman in the best of times. The job requires a fair level of intelligence, education, physical stamina, self-discipline, courage, and inter-personal skills. The pay and social standing are moderate middle class. Military veterans can empathize. In the worst of times the police are the pawns of the political class - and these are the worst of times. 

    When the times are tough, there are two ways to view the police:

        - Black Lives Matter, and to a lesser extent, Barack Obama (dating at least to the beginning of his presidency) view the police as an occupying force. In addressing the recent Baton Rouge and St. Paul shootings Obama said "These are not isolated incidents. They're symptomatic of a broader set of racial disparities that exist in our criminal justice system," and that there "are problems across our criminal justice system; there are biases - some conscious and some unconscious - that have to be rooted out." At the White House convocation after the killing of five policemen inspired by the Black Lives Matter activists, Obama stressed the bad news that progress is hard, and participant Al Sharpton chirped about the cops learning about "our pain of having to tell our children to be careful of policemen" as if cops were from another planet.

        -  Police leaders and the rank and file would prefer to view themselves  as servants of the community. Some fall short, but the vast majority take the responsibility seriously, follow proper procedures, and take pride in the sacrifices they make in protecting society from its worst elements. This is not the message from Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton who immediately called for a federal investigation of the Saint Paul Police Department; it is the message of Dallas Police Chief David Brown who announced to his protesters that he was hiring if they really wanted to help the community.

    While there are legitimate examples of criminal behavior by the police, the advocates for accountability and reform have done a disservice to the police and people of good will. The Black Lives Matter leaders do not distinguish between the 2014 Ferguson, Missouri incident where a 6' 3'', 250 pound teenager who had just robbed a convenience store and tried to take a police officer's gun was shot as he charged the officer, and the 2015 Baltimore, Maryland incident where a handcuffed and defenseless 25 year-old arrested for possessing a knife died of injuries while in a police van, or the 2014 New York incident where a 35 year-old asthmatic was killed in a choke hold during a low-level rousting. The claim of "white racism" was belied by the participation of African-American cops in the latter two incidents. 

    Sometimes data helps defuse emotional confrontations:

        - According to the Washington Post, of the 990 people killed by police in 2015, 50% were white and 26% were Black, while Blacks commit a majority of robberies and murders in most major cities.  

        -  95% of black shooting deaths do not involve the police, and violent crimes are 7 to 10 times higher among blacks than among whites. It is not racial profiling to put the resources where the greatest problems are. 

       - In 2015, 41 officers were killed on duty and 45 died in work-related accidents. 

       - In recent decades violent crime is actually down, racial relations have actually improved, and a disproportionate amount of the police confrontations occur with Blacks because a dis-proportionate amount of violent crime is committed by Blacks;

      - Those who would be open to academic research might read "The War on Cops" by Heather McDonald who cites studies at Washington State and Harvard University which debunk the narrative of racial bias in the use of force by police.  She does, however, tie the recent increase in violent crime in many major cities to a natural reduction in aggressive policing due to fear of physical or political attack. 

   This is not a new subject. Best practices are known. Most urban police forces around the country have substantial training for beat officers and employ a significant number of minority officers and leaders. The Justice Department is available to assist when local investigation would lack credibility. There is value in discussing the use of tasers and body cameras, and the role of civilian oversight, but the rate of progress will not be accelerated by a higher decibel level or by extending the conversation to include gun control or the general plight of the African-American community.    

   This is a legitimate subject being hijacked by both sides of our great political divide. With 90% of African Americans voting Democratic, the Hillary Clinton forces need to prevent a big drop-off in turnout with Barack Obama no longer on the ballot and the Democratic Party advocating for millions of illegal immigrants who compete for low-end jobs; with the inclusion of chants calling for the killing of police among the Black Lives Matter demonstrations there will be a huge opening for Donald Trump as the "law and order" candidate; it makes a marvelous story for the media - left or right.

    It would be nice if the media and political leaders focused primarily on supporting those like the African-American police chief of Dallas who is devoting his life to "walking the talk" on the front line. 

                                                                        -----

  This week's bonus video is an interview with the United Kingdom's new top diplomat, Boris Johnson. (?) 

bill bowen - 7/15/16

Nobility's Low Ebb

 

        Merriam - Webster presents two definitions for the adjective "noble":

1. Belonging to a hereditary class with high social or political status; aristocratic.
2. Having or showing fine personal qualities or high moral principles and ideals.

       The etymology of the word would show the second definition developing from the first - in part because in past eras the "one per cent" were provided with liberal educations and taught manners as a condition for their acceptance in the ruling class, and in part because they controlled the flow of information about their behavior. Leadership rested on power, but also on a bit of carefully managed moral validity.  One might assume that nobles were noble. 

       No more in 21st Century America - at least as reflected in this presidential campaign. The "race to the bottom" is accelerating with the presumptive Democratic nominee being officially recognized as an "extremely careless" liar, and the presumptive Republican nominee careening from one offensive comment to another.  

       If there were any doubt about whether Lady Liberty still was blindfolded it was erased on July 5, when FBI Director James Comey announced that he would not seek an indictment of Hillary for her behavior which appeared to violate espionage statutes on the grounds that she had not demonstrated intent (which is not required in the law) and it would be inappropriate to use the 1917 Espionage Act under which "gross negligence" would be adequate. Most of the House Oversight Committee questions were political, but Trey Gowdy made the compelling point that, even if specific intent were required, prosecutors regularly view pervasive false exculpatory statements as evidence of consciousness of guilt and intent. Comey acknowledged that Hillary had lied when she had claimed that:

          - Classified information had not been sent or received on her e-mail system;

         - No messages marked as classified were sent or received;

         - She had used the private server for the convenience of having just one device; 

         - All work-related materials were returned to the State Department;

         - No work-related e-mails were deleted from her personal account;

         - Her lawyers read every e-mail in the process of ensuring that a liberal interpretation was used     

               in determining what was to be turned over to State.

       By normal legal standards Hillary Clinton demonstrated specific intent, which Comey relied on and which is beyond what is called for in the statute, and the FBI should have sought prosecution for violation of laws protecting classified information. Beyond that one can conjecture what Attorney General Loretta Lynch thought after conversations with President Obama and Bill Clinton, whether she shared her views and intentions with Comey, whether Comey looked to the lesser evil of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, or if he just thought it would be damaging for the country to have the presidential nominee of one of the major parties be indicted during a run-up to an election.  What is clear is that he held Hillary Clinton to a lower standard than called for in the law and which would be applied to virtually any other citizen.  Ignoble behavior is legally - and probably politically - acceptable from the nobles in 2016.   

      The Republic will survive.  It survived William Henry Harrison, Warren Harding, and Andrew Johnson. It survived the personal corruption of Lyndon Johnson and the progressive incompetence of Barack Obama. It can survive preferential treatment of the political aristocracy - without people being particularly surprised.  It could even survive the increasingly unlikely election of the boorish lout Donald Trump. The real problem is not with the leaders, it is with the potential loss of nobility among the people. 

       The greatest immediate damage  lies in the "little people" who make up the security establishment. What happens to the FBI agents who have spent the last year observing first hand the lawlessness of the Democratic presidential nominee, only to see a different standard applied? What happens to the people of the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office who see their top secret work exposed to foreign hackers with impunity? How do our intelligence and military leaders recruit the foreign nationals who have seen their predecessors abandoned when convenient? What happens to the CIA interrogators who know that Lynch's predecessor wanted to prosecute them, or the members of the military who saw the President and his inner circle abandon an ambassador and his defenders under fire, and then lie about the cause?  These folks need a hug from the American people. 

       The door is open for a generation of cynical nihilists. Maybe this was inevitable after the disappointment of the vacuous promise of “hope and change”. Maybe this runs in cycles and the bottom is being hit. Maybe in the next presidential cycle the public will be ready for a leader with nobility.  A good starting point would be equality before the law.  

                                                                               ----- 

  And continuing on the theme of justifiable cynicism, this week's bonus video is chilling discussion of Google's manipulation of search results in favor of Hillary Clinton. 

bill bowen - 7/8/16

"What Difference Does It Make?": Foreign Policy

    This is the most challenging presidential election ever for people of conscience. The first instincts are to rationalize away the personal shortcomings of your presidential candidate and get behind your team. When the magnitude of the Trump offense (or conversely, the Hillary offense) expands again, the answer is to sit it out - concentrate on other races; think about what you will tell your kids; tell yourself, to coin a phrase, "What Difference Does It Make?" That may work on domestic policy, but not internationally. 

    On domestic issues the direction of the country is a compromise between the president and the Congress and having Hillary in the White House with a Republican House and potentially a Republican Senate would represent four years of muddle with somewhat moderate union-friendly Democratic executive appointees doing battle with Republican budgets, oversight hearings, and occasional policy dictates.  It would look a lot less like the first two Obama years when the Democrats controlled everything and gave us Obamacare, a hugely corrupt "Stimulus Plan", and trillion dollar deficits;  and it would look more like the years of gridlock which have followed. That is not satisfying for the Republican base; it would be a missed opportunity to roll back regulations and move toward balanced budgets; it would be a missed opportunity to accelerate the growth of the economy and fix healthcare; it would be a missed opportunity to restore the balance between public safety and civil rights. But all of that would be temporary. If deficits are controlled the damage can eventually be reversed.

    Not so internationally. There are two good reason to believe that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be an unmitigated disaster:

        1. Hillary Clinton was a primary architect of the policies which have caused more pain and suffering in the world than any period since World War II.

        2. In the calculus of Democratic Party internal politics, she has determined not to criticize Barack Obama (except to note that Obama's doctrine of "don't do stupid stuff" is not an organizing principle for foreign policy), and Bernie Sanders has avoided foreign policy except for criticizing Clinton's vote fore the Iraq War.  

    Let's take a quick survey with conjecture about what a Republican president might do differently from Obama / Clinton: 

        - Everything starts with the Middle East with the unlearned lesson about deposing tyrants that we do not like and leaving chaos in the wake - Iraq; Libya; Syria. Support the Muslim Brotherhood over Hosni Mubarak in Egypt prior to the counter-coup. Lead from behind in combating the JayVee ISIS. Trump would be less frequently engaged, but more forceful. There might be more tyrants, but there would be more stability. If that offends you, hold the thought. 

        -  The United Nations sets the number of refugees globally at a record of some 65 million in 2015, over half of which came from Syria, Somalia, and Afghanistan - two of which which were relatively peaceful when the Nobel Committee gave the incoming US president their Peace Prize. If there is any introspection in the Obama / Clinton brain-trust, it has not made its sway into the news and Madam Secretary has offered no solutions to the human disaster which she helped create.

        - Mitt Romney was famously ridiculed for claiming that Russia was our number one international threat. Hillary knew better and presented Foreign Minister Lavrov with the red "Reset" button, erroneously labeled "overcharged." That was before Putin carved up the Ukraine and bombed our proxy army in Syria, and before NATO launched the largest military exercises in decades in Eastern Europe. Some of the execution belongs to Obama and Kerry, but the vision and groundwork belong to Clinton. Trump thinks that he could negotiate with the Russian czar - that would be a fun discussion to watch.

        - In the broad sweep of history, the main feature of the Obama/Clinton  years may be a nuclear North Korea and soon-to-be nuclear Iran. The only answer on North Korea (aside from some key assassinations) is to get China to lead on stopping proliferation in their neighborhood - Clinton and Kerry failed; maybe Trump could do better. Clinton supports the "peace in our time" deal with the ayatollahs; Trump would tear it up - maybe too late, but the current path leads to a nuclear Middle East within a decade.

        - One could add a Trump "eyes wide open" approach to the immigration of young Muslim males from jihadi countries, Obama and Clinton welcoming Cuba back into the world community while the Castro brothers retain their dictatorship, and the massive refusal to enforce our immigration laws.

    Actually, on foreign policy where the executive branch plays the singularly dominating role the choice between Clinton and Trump makes a great difference. It is ironic that Trump beats Clinton on management of the economy while she wins on foreign policy where she can paint Trump as mentally unstable - and ignore her inability to name any accomplishments during her disastrous gig at the State Department.  

                                                                                     -----

    With an X-rated warning to more genteel readers, this week's anti-Brexit video offers a warning as to the developing tone of the US presidential election. 

bill bowen - 6/24/16    

Trump's Nuclear Vulnerability

    There is every reason to believe that as the direct Hillary / Donald campaign heats up, the Clinton camp will make a significant issue of Trump's temperament controlling the nuclear trigger.  While it has been a long time since nuclear weapons have been in the front of the public mind, they represent an issue which can transcend others - other failings can be corrected over time (even ObamaCare), but the "steady hand" is important if the public is focused on the nuclear risk.  As much as those concerned about national security dislike the Obama administration - efforts to prosecute CIA interrogators at Guantanamo; the refusal to come to the aid of those under attack at Benghazi; dangerously restrictive rules of engagement in Afghanistan; politically correct personnel policies in the military - the nuclear issue should give reason to pause. 

    With different emphasis and result, past campaigns have raised the specter of a president without the background and stability to be in charge of the national defense in a major crisis. 

        - In truth, John F. Kennedy was unprepared. In his brief term as president, he supported, then abandoned the Cuban opposition to Fidel Castro. When Nikita Khrushchev tried to use the opportunity to place intermediate range nuclear weapons in Cuba in 1962, the world came perilously close to nuclear war. Fail Safe (1964) and  Dr. Strangelove (1964) reflected the public mood. When Barry Goldwater ran against Lyndon Johnson in 1964, he was painted as being too eager to go to war - both in Vietnam, and with nuclear weapons. In the "Daisy ad", perhaps the most famous political advertisement of all time, Johnson effectively cast the election as between his peace and Goldwater's nuclear war. 

        - Hillary doesn't need to go very far to recycle her 2008 "3 am phone call" ad which touted her experience as First Lady and in the Senate in contrast to Barack Obama's equally brief Senate record. It isn't about accomplishments (or lack thereof) - it is about having developed an even hand that is required when momentous decisions need to be made unexpectedly. Not Trump's forte. 

    Voters may forgive Trump for his habit of speaking offensively about things he has not studied. He can learn; he can have good advisers; he is negotiating and will back away from extreme positions; errors can be corrected. But national security, and particularly the nuclear component of national security, does require being ready on Day One. The source and nature of a crisis are unknowable in advance and the nation needs a leader who can be relied on to make reasoned, difficult decisions based in large part on what they already know. Usually there can be briefings and advice, but the person making the decision needs to synthesize information quickly and apply it against a set of understandings and policies which they have previously digested. Trump has offered some troubling examples:

        - In one of the early debates he seemed unfamiliar with the term "nuclear triad" - the combination of bombers, missiles, and submarine-launched missiles. In truth, most of the candidates other than John Kasich, Lindsay Graham, and Marco Rubio would not have understood the nuances of each, but Trump was portrayed as an amateur. When the time comes to prepare for presidential debates, we will see if he understands the deficiency and has done his homework.  

        - A more troubling example of Trump's unpreparedness is his riff in late March about how we have protected our allies for too long, and it might be time for Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia to develop their own nuclear weapons. Perhaps this is an opening bid in a negotiation to gain greater compensation for our efforts, or to convince China that they need to rein in North Korea, but the discussion itself is destabilizing. Japan and South Korea quickly rejected the thought, but the Saudi's will be tempted, given the Iranian nuclear and missile programs approved by the Obama administration. 

    Hillary's direct approach will be to claim credit for the negotiation of the 2010 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia which called for capping the number of deployed nuclear warheads at 1550 for each side. Since then, the deployed US warheads have been reduced from 5916 to 1481, while the Russians have been reduced from 3897 to 1735.  The Heritage Foundation finds many flaws with the treaty, such as the exclusion of tactical nuclear weapons (particularly in Europe) where the Russians have a large numerical advantage. Others note that the warheads have been returned to inventory rather than being destroyed. Expect an exchange of expert white papers and  a lesson on negotiating. 

    For those willing to stay with the subject for awhile, Hillary has several other negatives.  

        - For decades the nuclear club has consisted of the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, Israel, India, and Pakistan. Others - South Africa, Libya, former Soviet republics - gave up their programs voluntarily, and Israel took out Syria's development facilities in 2007. Beyond "the club", others were made to understand that nuclear weapons would make them tempting targets, and that protection by the West was better than trying it themselves. The overthrow of Khaddafi in Libya and the West's reticence to support the Ukraine against dismemberment by Russia were direct refutations of that Faustian bargain, and have served as a spur for North Korea to accelerate its rogue program. Whether the fault lies with Hillary or Obama can be debated.  

        - John Kerry and Barack Obama deserve the blame for the unverifiable, temporizing, "peace in our time" Iran deal, but Hillary will of necessity be a defender and Trump will be an attacker. He will need a proposition beyond "tear it up".  

    For those sincerely concerned about the nation's policies in the nuclear arena, as well as those simply interested in the political contest, there are several things that Trump needs to do. 

        - He needs to identify a serious national security team. Thus far his announced advisers amount to little known third tier players. He needs a David Petreus, a Condi Rice, and a few top academics. 

        - He needs to prepare for the presidential debates in an entirely different way than he prepared for the Republican contests. Mitt Romney's sessions with Rob Portman before the first 2012 debate provide a good model. He could start now. 

        - He needs to moderate his foreign policy pronouncements - particularly those touching on the global nuclear balance.  Other countries are actually influenced by what a major party nominee for the American presidency thinks and says.

                                                                           ----- 

   This week's video is a first (and probably last on RightinSanFrancisco) discussion with Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.

bill bowen - 6/3/16 

The End of Hope and Change

   

                                “The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
                                         Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
                                   Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
                                         Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”

                                                        Omar Khayyam (1048-1131) 

     The Republic will apparently survive Barack Obama. We can thank the Founding Fathers for devising a system of checks and balances between the executive, the legislature, and the courts, and between the federal government and the states. We can thank past Republican presidents for appointing judges who respect the Constitution. We can thank the people who have reacted to Obama's excesses by electing a solidly Republican House, a Republican Senate, and strong Republican majorities in the governorships and state legislatures. 

     Nine months before he leaves office, there is ample evidence that Obama will not leave much of a stamp on the country:

        - The Affordable Care Act, his signature legislative achievement, is dissolving despite Herculean efforts to impose it and ongoing propaganda from the Department of Health and Human Services. Of the net 16 million who have gained insurance, about half come from employers with decreasing unemployment, and a quarter come from expansion of Medicaid. Many of the co-ops set up under the Act have gone out of business. United Healthcare, the largest national healthcare insurer, is pulling out of most of the state exchanges amid indications that the high cost of those enrolling will continue to lead to substantially escalating losses and rate increases.   The majority of the public now understands that "you can keep your doctor" was a lie, and favor significant changes to the legislation. 

         - Reality is forcing Obama to reverse what he considered his signature foreign policy objective - ending American involvement in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Troop levels are back up to 5000 in Iraq and 10,000 in Afghanistan, and the role of the "boots on the ground" is looking more and more like combat with Apache helicopters flying close air support for Iraqi troops fighting ISIS. Neither war is going well (not to mention the war in Syria); both have deteriorated during the seven years of Obama's presidency. 

         - The death of Antonin Scalia has saved the Democrats from a set of likely 5 to 4 conservative votes, but the result of a likely 4 to 4 tie will be to let stand a lower court invalidation of Obama's executive order suspending deportation of 4 million illegal immigrants.

        - President Obama's traditional exiting world tour demonstrates how little influence he has internationally.  He is received coldly in Saudi Arabia where he thinks that he can help mediate the Sunni-Shia divide despite his overtures to Iran; he is will be received coldly in Britain where he tries to engage in the upcoming election on membership in the European Union; there will be no reprise of his triumphant 2008 speech in Berlin or his 2009 Cairo speech where he  promised a kinder and gentler American role in the Middle East.    

        - He has called Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen to the White House to discuss the benefit of keeping interest rates near zero through the election. Once this opiate is taken away, a more accurate picture of the Obama economy will emerge. 

        - The country had looked to the first African American president as a healer of ethnic rifts, but the Democratic Party strategy has been the opposite - using the divisions to drive voter registration and turnout - with the result that the relation between police and inner city residents has hit a multi-decade low. 

    Obama's role in electing his successor has been muted while there is a contest within the Democratic Party, but that will change once the conventions are over. While the "wrong track" reading has reached about 69 %, the president's approval rating has been hovering around  50 % - he is, after-all, a likable enough fellow in contrast to Hillary, Donald, and Ted. The president will play a role in unifying the Democratic party while the Republicans have no senior statesman who can appeal to both sides after a divisive convention. Advantage Democrats. 

    For those that are optimists, the institutions created by Jefferson, Madison, et al have been strong enough to withstand the perfect storm of an economic collapse and the ascendancy of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the legion of those who would look to an increasingly powerful federal government to take care of the needs of a submissive people. The first step of recovery is recognition - Bernie Sanders' followers on the left recognize the corruption of the establishment led by Hillary Clinton; Donald Trump's supporters recognize that the system has been increasingly structured to the detriment of the traditional middle class. Unfortunately, those sounding the alarm have no experience in governing and lack the realistic policy solutions to the problems that they rail against. At least it is a start. 

    Barack Obama will leave a more dangerous world than he inherited: Iran and North Korea on the path to nuclear missile capabilities; the Sunni-Shia divide leaching out into civil wars, an immigration crisis, and an expanded terrorist threat against the West; a national debt of $19 trillion which is manageable with interest rates near zero, but a huge problem when they return to normal levels; an American public which is divided and restive. The country needs to nominate and the country needs to elect the person most qualified to lead the nation and the western world back to security and growth. I am in the John Kasich camp.   

                                                                            -----

   This week's bonus is a detailed analysis of the remaining Republican primaries by Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley at Rasmussen Reports. Essentially, New York stopped the bleeding for Trump; he will likely need a share of the 200 or so uncommitted delegates to reach 1237, and the remaining states to focus on are Pennsylvania (April 26), Indiana (May 3), and California (June 7.) 

bill bowen - 4/22/16 

At War With ISIS

     One section of President Obama's recent State of the Union address was both deathly serious and perplexing. After a preamble putting the most positive spin possible on the war against ISIS, Obama challenged:    

        "If this Congress is serious about winning this war, and wants to send a message to our troops and the world, authorize the use of military force against ISIL. Take a vote."

    He has a point. 

    In the early 1970's  there was a backlash against Lyndon Johnson's incremental expansion of the Vietnam War, resulting in the War Powers Resolution of 1973 - passed over President Nixon's veto - which prohibited deployment of US armed forces without the approval of Congress, or "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."  President Clinton probably violated this act by his actions in Kosovo, but in general presidents have taken the limitation seriously. In 1991, President George HW Bush obtained Congressional approval for the First Gulf War. 

  Three days after 9/11/2001, Congress passed a resolution authorizing the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any further acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."  In 2002, there was a subsequent specific authorization for the Second Iraq War, but for the most part the "war on terror" - conflicts in Afghanistan, incarceration and interrogation, the killing of bin Laden - has been conducted under the aegis of the September 2001 legislation. What does a reasonable interpretation of the resolution cover? Al Queda - sure; the Taliban - sure; ISIS - it is a stretch. 

    It is useful to take a step back and look at how the threat has evolved. 

        -- While ISIS has its roots in abu Musab al-Zarkawi's "al Queda in Iraq" which was formed in 2006, it was taken over after his death by abu Bakr al Baghdadi who made a full break with the al Queda leadership in 2014 and has fought against the Syrian affiliate, the al Nusra Front. The split has involved both personal conflicts and a difference over strategy with al Queda focused on the West, and al Baghdadi focused on establishing a caliphate in the "here and now". 

        -- With the occupation of territory the size of Indiana and Baghdadi's declaration of a caliphate, ISIS has attracted recruits from all over the world. Significant jihadist groups from Libya, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bengladesh, and Indonesia have declared allegiance. Within the past few months there have been high profile terrorist attacks in Istanbul, Paris, Jakarta, Burkina Faso, Afghanistan, and Pakistan as well as San Bernadino. While Obama talks only about the Syria / Iraq base, ISIS' reach is global. 

        -- Generally with tacit Republican agreement (but some Democratic opposition) Obama has expanded the role of US armed forces in the Middle East. We participated in the air war to overthrow Khadafy in Libya. American aircraft have flown over 10,000 missions in Iraq and Syria. Special Forces advisers in Iraq have played an increasingly active role in the recapture of Ramadi. In October, Obama authorized about 50 Special Operations advisers in Syria. The withdrawal from Afghanistan was delayed, and now the mission is being expanded to include offensive operations as well as training and intelligence support. About 300 troops have been sent to West Africa to help in the fight against Boko Haram. 

        Despite his halting steps, the president remains in denial about the scope and seriousness of the Islamic terrorist threat. Some of this is because escalation is contrary to his vision for his presidency; some is because the Republicans refuse to give him cover.  He won't use the term radical Islamic extremism; he continues to view jihadists as subject to criminal prosecution rather than as prisoners of war; he continues to release prisoners from Guantanamo; he still has no apparent strategy to defeat ISIS. The death toll in Syria has passed 250,000; reports of atrocities in ISIS territory abound; jihadists around the world, such as the adherents of Jemiaah Islamaya in Southeast Asia, have been reinvigorated as Obama's "Jayvees" have the West at bay. 

        When courage and leadership is called for, all that has come from the Republicans is a call for more bombing and a refusal - except for the recently departed Lindsey Graham - to discuss "boots on the ground". Some of this reflects a reluctance to expand Obama's presidential authority after his abuse with the Environmental Protection Agency, immigration, gun control, and anything else on his agenda. Some reflects his inability to send his Chief of Staff over to Congress for a chat. Some reflects a Republican desire to avoid responsibility for the necessity of more ground troops, leaving Obama exposed to criticism for marginally effective small steps. For sure, the determination of what needs to be done must come from the military experts, but they do not function in a political vacuum. Perhaps it is time to give the president what he asked for - an authorization for the use of military force to eliminate ISIS and all affiliated radical Islamist jihadist organizations - using all military, political, and economic means necessary, consistent with the War Powers Resolution of 1973.    

                                                                            ----

For anybody searching for the right presidential candidate to support, this short test will tell you who you align with on policy matters - compliments of a friend and reader in Washington, D.C.  

bill bowen - 1/22/2016

Obama's American Trajectory

    The holiday season is approaching; let's be optimists. The American glass is much more than half full. We are still the most powerful nation earth. We still have the largest and most dynamic economy on earth. We are the most diverse and inventive nation on earth. Billions of people would choose to live here if they could. By any measure, the United States has been the preeminent country in the world since World War II. 

    That said, a solid majority of Americans believe that we are on the wrong track, and Donald Trump gets a strong response with his campaign slogan "Make America Great Again".  The problem is not where we are, it is the trajectory. Let's look at what Barack Obama's "Hope and Change" presidency has done to the position of the United States in the world. 

    1. The most obvious area of contention is the military. In absolute terms, we spend some $570 billion on our military - over four times second place China, and more than the next seven countries combined. At 3.5% of GDP this is behind Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Russia, but ahead of just about every other significant player. A reasonable percentage of the largest economy gives a dominant military. But there are four issues:  

        - The 2011 Budget Control Act - passed by a combination of Democrats who favored domestic spending and Republican deficit hawks who prioritized fiscal integrity  - reduced projected spending over the following decade by $500 billion, representing a 9% cut across the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines. The impact has been softened by paying for operations in the Middle East "off the books", but there is enough pain to bring cries from defense contractors, military leaders, and Republican politicians. Active duty military personnel have declined from about 1,400,000 in 2008 to about 1,350,000 today with the difference largely coming from the Army. (The current budget deal restores half of the FY2016 military and domestic spending cuts, much to the chagrin of the fiscal conservatives. More on this another day.) 

       - Most of our NATO allies fall short of the 2% of GDP minimum required by the alliance. While there was a meaningful NATO participation in Afghanistan and Iraq during the Bush presidency, there has been little enthusiasm to engage militarily in the Middle East during the Obama era. Few want to be in front if we lead from behind. 

       -  As President Obama announced in 2014 and is apparent today, there is no strategy to use the US military to defeat ISIS. At least on the margin, how the military is used is more important than how large it is.

       - The president has agreed that, in the best of cases, Iran will be able to join the nuclear weapons club in 15 years. 

   2.  America's dominant position in the world economy is being diminished. Some of this is inevitable, with China's economy growing at 7+ % per and ours struggling along at under 2%; some is despite the administrations efforts; some just slips by under the radar. 

        - The Trans-Pacific Partnership reached with 11 other Pacific rim countries (excluding China) offers a chance for America to re-assert leadership in alignment with the administration's "pivot to Asia" - if it can pass Congress, and if it is implemented by an administration which understands our position of strength.  Let's give credit where it is due. 

        - But, in the realm of "Oh, I think that I heard something about that":  The International Monetary Fund has accepted the Chinese yuan as an official "reserve currency" along with the euro, the Japanese yen, and the British pound, setting the stage for a less influential greenback; several western allies have signed on with the China-centric Asian Investment Bank - a competitor of the US/Europe-centric World Bank; and it has been necessary for Congress to block the administration's attempt to turn over ICANN, the hub of the internet which assigns domain names among other things, to an international organization for no apparent reason other than to appease critics of NSA spying. (US invention and domination of the Internet has played a major role in its development and open structure.)

    3. When one ponders the Left's enthusiasm for the "global warming" narrative, the answer is summarized in the Paris Conference premise that world leaders have agreed to act as one to fundamentally transform the global economy, destroying companies and countries that have been preeminent in a carbon energy economy - and forcing the evil developed world to pay $100 billion to the poorer countries to subsidize their efforts to develop green energy. With the United States possessing the world's greatest coal and oil deposits, it is not too hard to see where President Obama would like to take us in the interest of global fairness.   

    It really is not too late. (Re-read paragraph 1.) But, it is imperative that the trajectory be reversed. Those pondering the 2016 Republican field should recognize that there are two questions - who would be the  best president?, and who has the greatest probability of being elected? Within the top 10 candidates, the second question is the only one which matters.

                                                                                            ----- 

This week's video is a short politically incorrect discussion of "climate change" by one of the founders of GreenPeace. 

bill bowen - 12/17/2015

Defeating ISIS: Thesis / Antithesis / Synthesis

    Georg Friedrich Hegel's structure for the development of ideas - thesis; antithesis; synthesis - provides a good framework for understanding the current state of debate about the war against ISIS. 

    President Obama tried to do the right thing with his address to the nation about terrorism - explain the military strategy in the Middle East; explain the strategy for combating domestic terrorism; call for calm in dealing with Muslims in America. He failed because his strategies are patently not working, and because he has forfeited the public's trust after years of meaningless commitments - "keep your doctor"; "Red Line" in Syria; reliable inspection of Iran's nuclear program; ISIS "contained".  His obvious failure gives conservatives some amount of satisfaction, but it is not good for the country in perilous times.   

    Thesis (Barack Obama)

    - As laid out in his speech, we are confronted by a group of barbarous thugs who need to be brought to justice. We have assembled a coalition of 65 countries to contain and eventually destroy their sanctuary in Iraq and Syria. Our intelligence and law enforcement agencies are on the alert domestically, but need more help from the leaders of the Muslim community. We must not abandon our American values by discriminating against all Muslims. Key elements of his strategy will be proven right over time - Assad must go; there must be no significant American ground troops involved; leadership in defeating extremists must come from the Muslim community itself.  

    - As described recently in speeches at the United Nations, in Paris, in Malaysia, and elsewhere: the greatest threat facing the world is global warming; ISIL is contained (just before the Paris bombing); there is no active threat to the Homeland (just before the San Bernadino shooting); Congress' reaction to domestic terrorism should be to enact tighter gun control laws; the prison at Guantanamo must be closed and the remaining prisoners tried in civilian courts or transferred abroad.

    - Perpetrators of mass murders should not be referred to as radical Islamic terrorists - regardless of where they have been trained, what support they receive, who they declare allegiance to, or who claims responsibility for their actions -  lest we stigmatize an entire group. They should be handled through the criminal justice system rather than through  military prisons and courts. 

      Obama seems to be frustrated by the fact that he can lay out a logical framework consistent with his world view; and that ISIS, our friends and opponents in the Middle East, and the American public are not smart enough to understand that the world is better off without an American policeman, and that time is on our side.   

    Antithesis (The strongest case)

    - But, the wish that ISIS can be defeated by air power alone is a politically comfortable fiction; there is no effective ground force in Iraq or Syria to retake territory from ISIS. Rather than being contained as in Obama's narrative, ISIS is rapidly expanding with nodes in Libya, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Yemen,  and a dozen other countries; effective cells of adherents are demonstrably present in France, Belgium, the United Kingdom, the United States, and increasingly throughout Europe.

    - Growing voices in Europe call for re-imposition of borders, rejecting the European Union's demand for immigration quotas, closing radical mosques, increasing police and military, accepting foreign tyrants who maintain order, and revoking joint citizenship. (Marine Le Pen) 

    - The rules of engagement in Syria and Iraq need to be changed. We should "carpet bomb" ISIS territory regardless of civilian casualties, implicitly using tactical nuclear weapons "until the sand glows". (Ted Cruz)

    - No Muslims should be allowed to enter the country until we understand how to sort out the terrorists. There should be no distinction between Sunni and Shia; between Arabs and other ethnicities; and (in its first iteration) between US citizens and non-citizens. (Donald Trump)  

    Some of the Trump bluster is attributable to the presidential candidate's style, but much is a predictable "equal and opposite" reaction to Obama and years of growing political correctness. Refusal to recognize reality on the President's part creates insecurity for the public and invites hyperbole on the other side. And the press loves to focus on Trump's inappropriate language as the White House press secretary rants about any Republican not repudiating Trump as being unqualified to be president because of his despicable position, his "carnival barker" campaign, and his fake hair. Such is the level of discourse at the highest levels. 

    Synthesis (A hopeful view)

    But there is some room for hope if serious minds can put aside Obama's nothing and Trump's blather.

    - Despite the rhetoric - including the implication in Obama's speech - there has been no significant increase in incidents targeting Muslims. In fact, since George W Bush visited a mosque in New York a few days after 9/11 there has been almost no evidence of increase in anti-Muslim discrimination. The FBI apparently has a solid working relationship with many Muslim leaders, and most preach moderation.    

    - In the Congress there has been a quick consensus to tighten laws for visitors from the 38 countries which had previously not required the fingerprinting, photographs, and interviews necessary for visas. Those who have visited Iraq or Syria in the past five years will now require visas; there will be an increase in sharing of information about foreign travelers. 

    - There are military answers in Iraq and Syria:

        -- Air power should be used where it can do the job. It is not as if satellites and reconnaissance aircraft were inhibited by cloud cover, difficult terrain, or surface to air missiles. There is no reason for ISIS to derive any revenue from oil. There is no reason for any military encampment or government building to be left standing in Raqqa, Mosul, Ramadi, or anywhere else in ISIS territory. 

        -- Feckless allies should be brought to heel. The border with Turkey should be sealed for ISIS recruits and smugglers. There should be no Iraqi government payments to anyone in ISIS territory. Saudi funding of the al-Queda affiliated al Nusra Front in Syria must be stopped. Whatever their issues with the PKK in Turkey, the Turks must not attack the Kurds in Iraq or Syria. 

        -- Special Operations personnel should be increased with the specific objectives of taking out ISIS leaders (al Baghdadi as a priority), identifying targets for allied aircraft, and training Iraqi and Free Syrian Army counterparts. As Defense Secretary Ash Carter has finally promised, we should provide attack helicopter support in Iraq.  

        -- Marco Rubio has the right idea on ground forces - some thousands, for the period of defeating ISIS, as the need is identified by military commanders. This must be part of a predominantly Sunni Arab force supported by NATO. As the Polish Foreign Minister has recently proposed, we should recruit an army from the refugees taking their families north into Europe, and give them a chance to restore their homelands. (Duh!)  

        -- Syria should be partitioned with no fly zones protecting areas controlled by the Kurds, the Turkomen, the Free Syrian Army, and other friendly forces.  Assad should remain in power in the territory allocated to the Alawites; that includes the naval and air facilities of interest to the Russians.  

      The problem with all of these ideas is that they can only be implemented by a Commander in Chief who is willing to be pushed. Some of that seems to be happening - 2500 troops in Iraq; a few Special Ops folks in Syria - but it may well be 2017 before the necessary actions are taken. 

                                                                                -----

    This week's video is provided for those who despair that Americans are no longer able to solve the world's major problems. 

    And a second bonus - Larry Sabato's excellent recap of the race for the Republican presidential nomination. 

bill bowen - 12/11/15

Turkey: The Key to Defeating ISIS

    With the Leader of the Free World focused on restructuring the international economic model to stop global warming, the task of defeating ISIS has fallen to a weak Iraqi government, numerous uncoordinated militias, and several external powers each of which is pursuing its own interests while limiting its exposure.  It is perhaps inevitable that Turkey, given its history and geographic position, would emerge as the central player in our absence. Fortunately, each country acts in its own national self interest, and Turkey's align pretty well with ours.  

    A brief history

     At least since 1453 when the Sunni Ottoman Turks captured Constantinople, vanquishing the Russian-allied Orthodox Christian Byzantines, the Turks and the Russians have been at odds. For centuries, much of the Russian psyche and military strategy has been determined by Turkish control of the Bosporus and Dardanelles which connect the Russian Black Sea to the Mediterranean. The underbelly of the former Soviet Union - Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kirghistan, and Turkmenistan - has ethnic and linguistic ties to Turkey, which was aggressive in recognizing their independence and establishing business ties. This rivalry is deeper than the Yankees and the Red Sox.  

    Russia and Turkey both endured the messy loss of empires in the 20th century. As new borders were drawn, many loyal citizens were caught in the "near abroad" which Vladimir Putin calls Russia's legitimate "sphere of influence" - including concentrations in the Ukraine and Georgia; Turkey feels a similar patronage for the ethnic Turkmen in Iraq and Syria. Both have enclaves of disenfranchised supporters in the Balkans. As the Turks look north across the Black Sea to see the Russians incorporating the Crimea, they look south to see them establishing bases in Syria. Putin and Erdogan understand strong leadership.   

    Since World War II, Turkey has been solidly committed to the West - joining NATO in 1952; contributing a brigade to the Allies in the Korean War; providing forces for the conflicts in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Afghanistan; housing an American nuclear force at Incerlik Air Base; maintaining a standing military of 639,000 - second only to the US in NATO; and joining only the US, the UK, Greece, Poland, and Estonia of the 28 NATO members in meeting the commitment to spend at least 2% of GDP on defense. For a over half century they have done their part.

    The Turks were early participants in Europe's post-WW II economic groupings, formally applied for membership in the European Union in 1999, and have subsequently restructured much of their legal and economic system (taxation; intellectual property; financial services; energy; justice system; etc.) to comply with EU standards, but accession has never been favored by most Europeans - particularly the French, Germans, and Austrians. With growing skepticism about the centralization of power in Brussels and the reaction to millions of Muslim refugees flooding into Europe, the most reasonable outcome is probably Angela Merkel's proposal of a "privileged partnership, but no full membership."     

    And a current perspective

        A couple of positives: 

            1. Europe is apparently willing to bribe the Turks to put a cork in the bottle of refugees. Turkey is the main path for Syrian immigrants - either across to Greek Islands, or north to Bulgaria - and currently houses over 2 million Syrian refugees in camps. The European Union has agreed to pay some $3 billion to upgrade and support the camps; the Turks have agreed to use best efforts to stop the flow, and to accept back "economic migrants" who have joined the true "refugees" transiting Turkey. We'll see - it's a start. 

            2. The Turks - who are strongly in the "Assad must go" camp - are on board for a buffer in Syria along their border where internal Syrian refugees can stay, protected from Assad and ISIS by the Turkmen minority and the Kurds. The Russian fighter jet shot down on November may have briefly violated Turkish airspace, but it appears that it was actually shot down over Syria and its real offense was in attacking the Turkmen militia opposing Assad. The American media has referred to general discussions between the United States and Russia about the need for the Russians to focus on ISIS, and the risk of clashes between allied and Russian aircraft. Erdogan made the point more forcefully.

        And two negatives:  

            1. The 550 mile border between Syria and Turkey cannot be sealed. The 60 mile stretch along the area in Syria controlled by ISIS is mountainous, and has a centuries-long tradition of smuggling. Refugees pass going north; ISIS recruits from outside pass going south. As some have noted, it might be better for President Obama to focus on his border with Mexico, and let the Turks do what they can.

            2. The Kurds. Ah, the Kurds - our most capable allies in Iraq and Syria; proponents of an independent state spanning parts of Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Iran; the Turk's longstanding PKK guerrilla insurgency.  A cynic might see some connection between improved relations with the PKK from 2010 to 2014, a surprising national election in 2014 in which millions of Turks voted for PKK candidates as a protest against Erdogan's consolidation of power, and a renewal of the government's campaign against the PKK which has spilled over into attacks on Kurdish positions in Syria.

    It is a sign of our myopia that the Paris bombing which killed 129 is seen as a "wake up call" for the West, while twin ISIS bombings in Ankara in October didn't make their way into the American mindset.  The Turks are as upset as the French; the difference is that they are on the front line, they have a strong leader, and they have a strong incentive to restore order in their neighborhood.

                                                                            -----   

        This week's bonus video is fawning Barbara Walters interview with Melania and Donald Trump. Like it or not, it is helpful to make him more personable. 

bill bowen - 12/4/15

             

 

   

       

Election 2016: The National Security Vote

    Amid the changing demographics and social attitudes of Americans, one constant - at least post-Vietnam - is respect and appreciation for those who have served their country in the armed services. (The consensus is strong enough that Hillary Clinton makes a "two pinnochios" claim that the anti-war law school graduate who had just moved to Arkansas with Bill Clinton made an effort to join the Marines in 1975.) Fortunately, those who have served are solidly offended by the Obama and Clinton policies and attitudes, and their influence in the 2016 elections will increase as national security rises as a campaign theme. 

    Even before the Paris attacks, polling of active duty and retired military by Rasmussen Reports showed Hillary at a stark 15% favorable and 81 % unfavorable (3% very favorable; 69% very unfavorable). That is even worse than a Military Times survey in January which showed President Obama at 15% favorable and 55% unfavorable among active duty military.  They are tied together, and Hillary's campaign shows no promise of departing from the policies and attitudes of Barack Obama in the realm which matters to veterans. 

   With a national total of about 230 million eligible voters, the all volunteer 1,350,000 active duty military (less than half of what it was during the Vietnam War) is small in absolute numbers, but it is dwarfed by the 22 million veterans who share their political leanings. Several of the swing states have a military and veteran presence above the 10% national average- particularly Colorado (11%); Florida (11%); and Virginia (13%). This is an engaged group - in 2014 the veterans voted at a 54% rate compared to the national average of 42% - and they have families and friends. 

    There are several types of issues which cause a strong anti-Hillary response among the active duty and former military voters: 

   1. Neither Obama nor Clinton understands and respects basic military culture and ethics. A representative Obama sin - the trade of five al Queda leaders in Guantanamo for Army deserter Bowe Berghdahl. A representative Clinton sin - the abandonment of the ambassador and the CIA operatives in Benghazi, and lying to their relatives about the video. The list is long - the overly restrictive Rules of Engagement which imperil soldiers in Afghanistan; the casual response to the Veterans Administration scandal; the focus on political correctness with gays, transgenders, and women in combat; the dismissal of non-compliant senior leaders.  

        2. The Obama / Clinton policies in the Middle East have abandoned a generation of hard-won accomplishments in favor of domestic political gain - the decision to remove all US troops from Iraq with the resultant rise of ISIS to fill the vacuum; the commitment of troops to an offensive in Afghanistan with a publicized date for withdrawal; the false ultimatums in Syria; the temporary abandonment of Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood. 

        3. The administration's indifference to maintaining military strength as evidenced in the 2011 sequester in which the president and the Secretaries of State and Defense were concerned about domestic spending, but were willing to accept military budgets which reduced the number of ships, aircraft, and ground forces - and significantly cut benefits for military families and veterans who worked for the government.

    Most of the prominent veterans organizations try to stay out of partisan politics, and the national crop of leading politicians is nearly void of veterans (only Lindsey Graham remains among the presidential field), but in the age where big money is looking for tactical advantages, there are inevitably operatives who put together organizations which support veteran candidates and issues. On the Left there is VoteVets, funded largely by billionaire Tom Steyer which has targeted House and Senate races where he can elevate candidates who will pursue an environmentalist agenda; on the Right there is Concerned Veterans, funded largely by the Koch Brothers which advocates for a more muscular foreign policy and a private sector option for veterans healthcare.  

    As the 2016 campaign progresses, look for a lot of candidate forums at the VFW hall, and look for a Republican-friendly audience. 

                                                                                   -----

    This week's video is the best yet interview with presidential candidate Donald Trump. (Click for the Fegelein comparison.) 

bill bowen - 11/27/15

    

    

Syrian Refugees: Restoring The Proper Focus

       Democrats always seem to be better at Public Relations than are Republicans. When faced with an indefensible position, they change the subject.

     Here we have a totally discredited Middle East strategy in which Hillary Clinton is inextricably complicit, particularly in Libya, but also in its grand design. We have a narcissist president who cannot admit, probably even to himself, that his policies have encouraged, then abandoned a revolution resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of migrants overwhelming neighboring countries and threatening to overwhelm Europe. We have his Secretary of State running for president, caught between the public's repudiation of the president's foreign policies and her need to demonstrate enough loyalty to retain the support of Obama loyalists. So, what is the focus of discussion? Refugees - a difficult subject which will divide people of good will across the political spectrum and which will likely look different once the emotional reaction to the Paris attacks has had a chance to calm down.  

    Let's restore the proper focus. 

    First on the Obama strategy, something that could only come from somebody with a totally non-American world view. Perhaps the son of a disgruntled Kenyan anti-British imperialism father; perhaps a childhood companion of a proud communist party member; perhaps a twenty-year parishioner of a "God Damn America" preacher; perhaps a colleague of a Weather Underground police killer. Who could possibly have seen this coming?

    The most recent things that should be getting the headlines:

    - Calling ISIS "contained" - just before the Paris attack, but shortly after deadly ISIS attacks in Beirut, Turkey, and the Russian airliner in Egypt indicated a shift in ISIS strategy to attacks beyond their core "caliphate".  A year ago al Queda was focused on attacking the West while ISIS was concentrating on building their proto-state in Iraq and Syria. No more. ISIS now has affiliates in Libya, Afghanistan, Egypt, Yemen, Bengladesh, ... No credibility remains for Obama - the Junior Varsity claim of 2014; the Red Line threat of 2013; and now the "contained" claim of 2015. We all suffer when the president of the United States is delusional. 

    - The refusal to reconsider strategy in the face of obvious failure. ISIS cannot be allowed a sanctuary; air power without ground forces cannot succeed; our NATO allies will not contribute troops if we do not; we cannot out of hand reject French President Hollande's proposal of an alliance with Russia; we must provide a safe haven within Syria for dissidents; perhaps the stability of Assad in much of Syria should be accepted. Instead, we get a promise to stay the course on the existing strategy, including the release of more jihadist leaders held at Guantanamo.  

    - There is a real threat to Judeo-Christian western civilization if the Middle East cannot be stabilized and most of the latest influx of refugees returned home. The president of France declares that we are at war. The leader of the Free World and the Democratic presidential candidates will not utter the phrase "violent Islamic extremism". 

      It has been much too easy for the president to divert attention by ringing the bell on refugees. Obama announces that we will take 10,000; almost all of the Republican governors announce that their states will not take any; presidential candidates run to exclude Syrian Muslims; the House passes legislation to stiffen vetting requirements. The airwaves are filled with stories about the limits of governors' authority, the anti-American nature of religious tests, the commitment of the administration to do thorough vetting; the racial and religious insensitivity of Republicans; and on and on. 

    So, what are some simple refugee proposals that could let attention shift back where it belongs?

        - Nothing is certain, but allowing 10,000 new refugees over a period of two years can be very low risk. There are millions to choose from. Even President Hollande of France has agreed to take 30,000. 

        - The vetting discussion is backwards, assuming that someone shows up on our doorstep and we need to figure out who he is. The better thought is to figure out who we want and to go get them. The criteria?

            1. Those who have known sponsors here;

            2. Those who have been outwardly aligned with us in their home countries - like the translators in Iraq who were subsequently abandoned, or the families of the New Syrian Army fighters who we have recruited; 

            3. Those who face annihilation at the hands of Islamic fundamentalists - Christians; Yazidis.

    There is also the important consideration of what is in our self interest. We are already a country with large numbers of Muslim immigrants from areas of conflict - Bosnia; Yemen; Somalia; Iraq; Afghanistan; Libya. We are also open, without visa requirements, to people with passports from the European Union and other places where Islamic terrorists reside. Our southern border remains open to anyone seriously interested in sneaking in. What is needed is a positive relation between the American Muslim community and law enforcement. As we renew the debate about electronic surveillance, we also need to bolster the FBI's capability to gather intelligence the old fashioned way  - better that it be with friends who we have brought here than with a dissociated immigrant community which has been rejected. 

                                                                        -----

    This week's video is President Obama's post-Paris speech in which he declares "we have the right strategy and we are going to see it through". 

bill bowen - 11/20/15. 

    

The Republican Field: Prioritizing National Security

    The recent California Republican Party convention featured foreign policy presentations by Ed Royce, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and John Bolton, George W Bush's Ambassador to the United Nations. Both discussed the mess that is Syria, Russian resurgence, the "no strategy" confrontation with ISIS, and the Iranian nuclear agreement. Both concluded that strong, competent foreign policy leadership must be the the first requirement for the Republican presidential nominee. Let's apply that test to the current field. 

    It is hard to sort out anything serious with the plethora of Republican candidates, given a focus on the subjects that the people in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina are interested in, and a 24 hour news cycle that jumps from the Pope's visit, to Planned Parenthood videos, to  to a shooting in Oregon, to a hospital bombing in Afghanistan, to the Republican leadership travails in the House.  Unfortunately, the current debate format and focus has not yet provided an opportunity for serious discussion with the 20 million person audience, but there are some clues on the candidates web sites and in their histories.

    The CNBC debate on October 28 will include candidates with at least 2.5% support in an average by six polling organizations. The apparent relevant views of the ten that would qualify today:

    Donald Trump (23%):

        - The Trump web site contains positions on tax reform, gun rights, and immigration, but nothing on foreign policy. While Trump's business activities are concentrated along the East Coast, he does have real estate and hospitality ventures in the Caribbean, Scotland, and the Philippines so he has interacted with other governments at some level.  He has no real foreign policy or national security experience.  

    Dr. Ben Carson (17%)

        - Doctor Carson's web site contains admonitions that we must support Israel and stand up to Vladimir Putin, with "all options on the table", but no specifics. He has no foreign policy or national security experience. 

    Carly Fiorina (11.5%)

        - Carly's web site contains her life story, including a defense of her time at HP, but little on policy. She did have significant international business experience, was Chair of the CIA's External Advisory Board, and has offered specific proposals to strengthen the military.  

    Senator Marco Rubio (9.75%)

        - Of the seven fairly detailed issue discussions on Rubio's web site, four deal with foreign policy, Iran, Russia, and the Veterans Administration. His committee assignments include the Foreign Affairs and the Select Committee on Intelligence. It is a focus. 

    Former Governor Jeb Bush (9.0%)

        - Bush's web posting on the Middle East is an August speech given at the Reagan Library - apparently written by consultants to cover "safe" Republican criticisms of President Obama. The Syria policy clings to the plan of coordinating unidentified secular opposition forces to topple and replace Assad. Bush has no real foreign policy experience, and likely would rely on the advice of many associated with his brother. 

    Senator Ted Cruz (6.0%)

        - Cruz' web site is mostly about his conservative credentials, and while it does list a number of relatively minor pieces of legislation supporting military personnel, it does not contain his ideas about ISIS, Russia, or the Middle East. He does sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee. 

    Governor George Kasich (4.0%)

        - Kasich's web site's policy plank on national security focuses on "cheap but smart" budgets without a discussion of how he would deal with threats. He was on the House Armed Services Committee for 18 years and was central to the restructuring of the military which took place under President Reagan. 

    Governor Chris Cristie (3.75%)

        - Cristie's web site talks of standing with our allies and standing up to our adversaries, increasing military funding, and strengthening intelligence, but there is little specific. He does speak hawkishly, particularly about the Patriot Act and his time as a federal prosecutor dealing with terrorism cases after 9/11. 

    Former Governor Mike Huckabee (3.5%)

        - Huckabee's web site speaks vaguely of "moral clarity" with all options on the table. He has no foreign policy or national security experience. 

   Senator Rand Paul (2.75%) 

        - Paul's web site makes a commitment to not engage in war without the approval of Congress and to rein in the NSA. He is on the Foreign Affairs and Homeland Security Committees.   

    For those who agree with Royce and Bolton that seven years of Obama, Clinton, and Kerry have made the world a more dangerous place and that the top priority for a president is someone with demonstrated national security expertise and the strength to restore American leadership, the top tier would seem to be Rubio, Kasich, and Fiorina.

                                        -----

    This week's video is an advertisement for the December Climate Change Conference in Paris - another opportunity for the Obama Administration to make executive decisions which will hobble the country - at least until undone by a Republican administration. 

bill bowen - 10/9/15 

The Middle East as Obama Winds Down

    Unfortunately our Commander in Chief does not have a plan for the war against ISIS a year after being asked. Also unfortunately, the narcissist is unable to collaborate to find common ground with friends or adversaries, either domestically or internationally. At this point the question in the Middle East is how the regional forces will play out in the absence of American leadership before President Obama is replaced in January of 2017. Some observations and predictions. 

    With hindsight, there are two reasons that it has taken Russia so long to come to the aid of their client in Syria. 

        -- Russia was a shambles when Vladimir Putin first took over from Boris Yeltsin in 1999. In 16 years - including 2008 to 2012 when he ruled from the back seat during the presidency of Dmitry Medvedev - he has largely reined in the oligarchs who stole much of the Russian wealth during the Breshnev and Yeltsin years, and resuscitated the energy-dependent economy with real disposable income rising over 160% in a decade. There remain major problems with income distribution, the flight of capital, and the drop of oil pricing since 2014, but even in Russia, James Carville's maxim explains political popularity - "it's the economy, stupid". Getting it right was the second priority - after consolidation of power.  

        -- Putin's international priority was to reconstitute as much of the former Soviet Union as possible through the establishment of economic and national security organizations to rival the European Union and NATO. Byelorussia and Kazakhstan have been eager participants; the three Baltic states looked to western Europe; and most of the other 10 independent countries participate to some extent. Along the way, Russia has supported protection of the millions of ethnic Russians who were stranded outside of the Russian border - with the de facto secession of two provinces from Georgia in 2008, the incorporation of Crimea in 2014, and the ongoing support for secessionists in eastern Ukraine. There is more work to be done, but European economic sanctions are biting, and Putin has decided to pause.  

    The most obvious feature of Russia's engagement in Syria is that Putin has always been committed to the preservation of the Assad regime, but it is more strategically significant that he has sided with the Iranian-led Shia alliance against the Saudi-led Sunni alliance.

        -- With the targeting of Russian air units against CIA-aligned anti-Assad forces, Putin has made it very clear that the United States will have no say in the outcome of the Syrian civil war. The protests of President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, and Secretary of Defense Carter are embarrassing to the neutral observer.   

        -- With the announcement of an intelligence sharing agreement Moscow has solidified the relation with Iran and Syria while co-opting the Shia government of Iraq which has a trickier balancing act with a large Sunni population. How much intelligence sharing evolves into operational planning is to be determined, but the capability is now in place for alignment of forces in Syria and Iraq, including Hezbollah.

        -- Without American leadership, the Sunnis (and Israel) are screwed. Recognizing the shifting reality, Turkey's Erdogan has gone to Moscow for consultations, as has Israel's Netanyahu. It is a long way for the Sunni leaders of Turkey and Saudi Arabia to retreat from their advocacy for the removal of Assad, but they have been presented with a Russian fait accompli, and they will be realists.   

        -- For their part, the Saudis have more to worry about than who rules Syria. With the validation of Iran's nuclear program, the release of some $100 billion in impounded Iranian funds, the civil war in neighboring Yemen, and the threat of ISIS, there is a need for the royal family to think defense. And that was before the stampede in Mecca which cost the lives of over 1000 pilgrims, bringing calls for an international Muslim organization to take over management of the hajj from the Saudis.  

   So, what to look for in the Middle East as the Obama administration winds down? 

        -- In Syria, it is too late for a no fly zone to protect the anti-Assad forces without risking conflict between American and Russian aircraft. Obama will not take the risk; Assad is safe, probably in limited territory. With no "boots on the ground" no air campaign will be able to dislodge ISIS with their growing following.   

        -- In the White House, the president will lose interest. His objective has been to avoid American casualties and reduce our footprint in the world. Mission accomplished, with the extra bonus of "peace in our time" with Iran. It is unfortunate for the 250,000 killed and the Europeans who are confronted with millions of refugees, but speeches were not enough, even back when Obama was giving great ones. 

        -- In the presidential campaign, Hillary will have to explain why she was opposed to efforts to remove Assad before 2012 - before she joined the "Assad must go" chorus without supporting military engagement. The Republicans, if the world is lucky, will nominate a candidate with national security experience willing to do what is necessary to defeat ISIS. Hopefully, the public will still care.   

                                           -----

    This week we have videos of three candidates for Republican Majority Leader - Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana; Budget Chair Tom Price of Georgia; and Boehner favorite Trey Gowdy who has apparently turned down an invitation to run.   

    bill bowen - 10/2/15

 

    

    

 

   

 

Obama / Putin / Assad: Act II

    Back in 2012 Vladimir Putin pulled Barack Obama's chestnuts out of the fire in Syria by orchestrating a partial turnover of Syria's chemical weapons to the UN after Obama had declared a "red line" if they were used, Assad's troops deployed chlorine and sarin gas anyway, and Obama was unwilling or unable to respond. Russia's current call for direct US-Russian military talks on Syria represent a Second Act in the play with Putin offering a way out for a cornered Obama.  

    In humanitarian terms, it is none too soon. Since the civil war began in 2011, some 200,000 Syrians have been killed; out of a pre-war population of 23 million, there are now some 1.9 million living in Turkey,  1.1 million in Lebanon, 630,000 in Jordan, 130,000 in Egypt, 250,000 in Iraq, 200,000 in Saudi Arabia, and 100,000 in the Gulf States as well as 7.6 million internally displaced in Syria. Billions of dollars of regional and global humanitarian aid have been spent despite the sharp decline in the region's oil revenues. Nearly half of the million soul immigrant wave overwhelming Europe originates in Syria. Many of the moderates have left or been killed. 

    In June, President Obama admitted to not having a strategy to defeat ISIS, whose ranks are growing despite a year long aerial campaign. Since Obama encouraged the rebellion by declaring "Assad must go" in 2011 and subsequently rejected the proposal of his military advisers to arm the Free Syrian Army, ISIS has established their caliphate capital in northern Syria and the militant Islamists (the al Queda-aligned al Nusra Front as well as ISIS) have emerged as the primary force opposing the Assad regime.  This week the top US commander in the region admitted that the plan to train a secular military force was a complete failure. 

    Unlike the US, the Russians have a plan - and they are implementing it. With the cooperation of Iran and Iraq, they have fortified an air base in the territory of Assad's core Alawite supporters, and are bringing in infantry, armor, artillery, and attack helicopters. The Russian naval supply and maintenance facility at Tartus will be protected. If Damascus falls, Assad's supporters will have a safe-haven. Russian influence in the Middle East will be at its greatest in decades. 

    The offer to Obama from Putin? No more US support for the overthrow of Assad. Free reign for the US to assemble a coalition to attack ISIS. Military coordination to ensure that Russian and American aircraft and other forces do not inadvertently attack each other. Tacit acknowledgement that the US strategy of replacing tyrants with chaos did not work in Iraq or Libya, and should not be pursued in Syria. 

    Sounds like a plan. The Sunni Saudi's and the Turks won't like accommodation with the Shia Alawites and their Shia Iranian and Hezbollah supporters. But, by now - particularly after the Iranian nuclear negotiations - our allies know what they can expect from the Obama administration. In any case, the Saudi priority is the existential threat from ISIS and the Turkish priority is keeping the Kurds in check.

    Elections have consequences. American elections have global consequences.   

                                         -----

     This week's video is my selection for the best by-play in the September 16 presidential debate. 

 

bill bowen - 9/18/15

        

        

    

                                    

        

Hillary's e-Mails: An Intelligence Perspective

    The Barack Obama / Hillary Clinton years have indisputably been the worst for the American Intelligence community at least since the Office of Strategic Services was created in 1942 - the 2010 WikiLeaks release of thousands of State Department communications; Edward Snowden's 2013 exposure of the gruesome details of NSA surveillance programs; the decision (apparently made by President Obama) to not come to the aid of CIA agents and the ambassador in Benghazi; the administration's Guantanamo-driven policy of killing jihadi leaders rather than capturing them for interrogation.  Whether a future president is trying to discern the status of Iran's nuclear program, the implications of Chinese expansion in the South China Sea, Russia's deployments across their western periphery, or the strengths and vulnerabilities of ISIS, the capability to rely on solid information has been diminished.

    While there are political and legal implications of Secretary of State Clinton's decision to use a vulnerable personal e-mail system to hide her communications from governmental and public inquiry, her behavior compromised both our leverage in ongoing international negotiations and, once more, the viability of intelligence gathering capabilities.

    First, particularly in light of the flurry of recent hacking incidents affecting the Office of Personnel Management, the Pentagon's Joint Staff e-mail system, and the IRS data base, it is inconceivable that the Clinton system would not have been found and targeted. And what might have been of interest to the Russians and Chinese between 2009 and 2013? Perhaps discussions with Germany, the Czech Republic, and Poland about missile defense systems? Perhaps potential reactions to Russian intervention in the Ukraine?  Perhaps our reaction to Assad's use of chemical weapons in Syria? Perhaps the erosion of support for sanctions against Iran? Perhaps discussions with Japan about China's expanding military capabilities?  Hillary made much of her "reset button" in the Russian relationship; a good poker player would have understood that the opponent was looking into our hand.

    But what of the damage to the intelligence system itself? There are several dimensions:

    - The intelligence community inspector general found that two of the forty e-mails which he reviewed contained Top Secret / Special Compartmentalized Information, using the designations for communications intelligence, satellite photography, and "no foreign dissemination".  Beyond having the necessary security clearances, there are strict rules about "need to know", further dissemination, and copying of the material which would be well known to any government employee with access. We do not want adversaries to know the capabilities and nuances of these collection sytems.

    - Less technical is the need to protect human sources, particularly when the information points back to a limited number of potential originators. Think Russian general staff plans for deployment in the Ukraine, or a dissident scientist's perspective on the status of Iran's nuclear program. In the real world the recruitment of informants in sensitive places is difficult, and the life expectancy of compromised spies is short. Lower level analysts do not want to know this information lest they inadvertently expose it. Strategy discussions at the Secretary of State level would have access to all that is available. 

    - Intelligence deals primarily with capabilities; diplomacy also deals with intentions which are subject to conjecture and opinion. Inherent to the State Department role is the sharing of conjecture and opinion with representatives of allied government - frequently with the understanding that the information and the source will not be passed on beyond a limited group. Like in the fifth grade, an inability to keep a secret excludes one from the information loop.

    This controversy about Hillary Clinton's e-mail will not go away. In fact, if there is ever a debate between a Republican candidate and Secretary Clinton, the question will no longer be "what did you accomplish"? It will be "what did you give away, and why?" 

                                        -----

    This week we have two short interviews with Carly Fiorina - with Chris Mathews and Katie Kouric - for anyone looking for a Republican who can make mince-meat out of an antagonistic media.      

 

bill bowen - 9/4/15       

Iran: A Sober View

     Within hours of last week's Iran nuclear deal the Left-wing Democrats, the Israel lobby, and the Obama-haters had all expressed their studied conclusions. Realistically, it will take a few months to understand whether we should be praising Barack Obama and John Kerry (no matter how much we may dislike their politics) or comparing them to "peace in our time" Neville Chamberlain.

    For better or worse, the deal is done - Mitch McConnell and John Boehner have agreed to let it be an "agreement" rather than a treaty, meaning that two-thirds majorities in both houses would need to vote to override a veto rather than the burden being on the President to get two-thirds of the Senate to approve a treaty.  He took it to the United Nations Security Council where he got a 15 to 0 vote before taking it to Congress. There are two secret side agreements whose status is not yet clear - one dealing with earlier Iranian testing of detonation devices, and the other dealing with international inspectors investigation of military aspects of Iran's program.  

    So, what to make of the deal? There are three categories of considerations.   

    1. The least important - except to the families directly involved. Some felt that we should have insisted on the release of four Americans being held in Iran. Fortunately, President Obama may have learned something from his naive exchange of five Taliban leaders for an Army deserter. Some reporters get emotional interviews, but this was not even a distraction. 

   2. Important, but with indeterminate long term results - the shift of power in the Middle East. 

        - Since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979 the United States has been on the side of the Sunnis in an effort to contain Shiite Iran and their proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and now Yemen. In addition to the Israelis, the Saudis, Turks, Egyptians, and Gulf States have operated under in an environment where they could rely on an American patron to protect them. This is no longer obvious.  

        - With the end of sanctions, Iran will have the capability of releasing some $2 billion of oil in storage and projects an ability to expand oil exports by some $10 billion per year. Some impounded assets have been released during the talks, but now some $120 billion will be available. For perspective, the World Bank pegs the GDP of Iran at $415 billion, with Iraq half that, and Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen in the $45 to 75 billion range. Iran will have ample capacity to help their proxies. The UN embargo against selling military equipment to and from Iran will end in five years, so weapons deliveries may take awhile.   

        - There may be more clarity about the war against the Sunni terrorist organizations, Al Queda and ISIS. With less animosity between the United States and Iran, it may be easier to support the government of Iraq; in Syria we are more likely to prioritize the defeat of ISIS and the al Queda affiliate (the al Nusra Front) over the overthrow of Assad. This would be in our interest, although Turkey and Saudi Arabia would not see it that way.  

        - As important as the relative Sunni / Shia balance in the Middle East is, containment of the Shia was not the purpose of the sanctions. Russia, China, and the United States joined the UK, France, and Germany in 2006 (under President Bush) to stop Iran's nuclear program. Sanctions were a tool agreed to by geopolitical adversaries; impacts on relative power in the region were a byproduct, not the purpose. Isolationists can can argue that we should let the water seek its own level anyway. 

    3. Critically important for long term global security - the strict containment of Iran's nuclear program. 

        - Since 1968, 191 countries have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. (North Korea subsequently withdrew.) The Treaty recognizes only the five permanent Security Council members - the US, the UK, Russia, China, and France - as nuclear weapons states, although it is widely understood that India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel are in the club. Many states have given up their programs - South Africa; Libya; the Ukraine; Kazakhstan. Aside from North Korea, the nuclear clock has been rolled back. 

        - Iran's development of nuclear power began in the 1950's with the "Atoms for Peace" program under President Eisenhower.  With Russian help, they started a peaceful nuclear power plant at Bushehr in 2011, all perfectly fine with the NPT.  There has been unacknowledged research and development on detonators and the attachment of nuclear weapons to missiles as well refinement of uranium approaching weapons grade levels.  A 2012 US intelligence estimate concluded that Iran was doing research on the production of nuclear weapons, but was not attempting to produce them. An IAEA report on this activity by December 15 will presumably acknowledge that the Iranians have violated their NPT commitments - an interesting, but irrelevant footnote.   

        - On the plus side, the agreement calls for a reduction of two thirds of Iran's centrifuges, a 98% reduction in their inventory of enriched uranium, limitations on their ability to enrich to weapons grade, and an obtrusive inspection regime to oversee 24/7 monitoring of the two major Iranian facilities and the entire nuclear supply chain.  

        - On the minus side, it is only for 10 years (hoping for change in Iranian attitudes), it allows for a delay of 24 days before inspections at any site beyond a few, it assumes a highly unlikely "snap back" of sanctions in the event of Iranian violations, it allows imports and research on intercontinental missiles in eight years, and it has those two pesky secret side deals.  

        - An exhaustive set of expert opinions by the 70-year old Bulletin of Atomic Scientists ranges from praise for the structure and pervasiveness of the monitoring arrangement, to concern about the absence of access to Iranian scientists, and concern about the precedent set for the other Non-Proliferation Treaty signatories by allowing Iran to process fuel. Even without a political agenda, knowledgeable experts can disagree. 

    Healthy skepticism should be exercised for the next 90 day study period, but by all indications, the horse has left the barn and the US congressional vote will be a meaningless side show. 

                                            -----

  This week's bonus is an undercover video of  Planned Parenthood's senior medical director describing the organization's program for selling body parts from aborted fetuses. 

bill bowen - 7/24/15

2016: The Known Knowns

    Between now and November of 2016 a couple of billion dollars will be spent to convince American voters that one party of the other has the answers - or at least that they have the questions. Most will be wasted - not because advertising doesn't work, campaigns and candidates are unimportant, or 21st Century Get Out the Vote techniques are lacking. To the likely benefit of Republicans major realities have made their way into the consciousness of any sentient being since the reelection of Barack Obama. Some broad strokes:

    1. There is a limit as to what big government can do, regardless of the ideological orientation of the president and the amount of financial resources and political capital thrown at the problem. 

        - The launch of Obamacare in 2013 was a disaster. Despite three years of preparation and hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the technology, it took myriad executive orders changing the legislatively enacted provisions and months of fumbling to enable the simple tasks of examining alternatives and enrolling. More on the substance, only a fraction of the target audience has signed up, insurance rates continue double-digit increases, fraud is rife, and a solid majority continue to oppose the law. 

        - The government is incapable of operating effectively in the cyber environment. The Chinese hacking of 22 million Office of Personnel Management records - Social Security numbers; background checks; personal health records - will be a personal disaster for many, and is incomprehensible to a generation which has grown up with technology. At least the president has started to fire grossly deficient department heads. 

        - The Veterans Administration's abject failure to serve the basic health needs of those who the average American would consider to be the most deserving resulted in the eventual firing of the director,  and pending legislation to make it possible to fire non-performing workers. but stories continue to abound of thousands dying while still on waiting lists. 

  2. The administration's Middle East policies are a disaster. 

        - The JV's rolled through Syria and Iraq in 2013 and continue to expand their influence across North Africa. 

        - There are no more lines in the sand in Syria, over 210,000 dead and over 4 million refugees and no plan to deal with or replace President Assad. 

        - Pick a country - Yemen; Libya; Nigeria; Somalia - the story is about the same. 

  3. Almost seven years after the financial collapse nobody has gone to jail, the "too big to fail" banks have become larger, hedge fund managers continue to have their incomes taxed at lower capital gains rates, and lending to small businesses continues to be strangled by regulations. The leaders of both parties are prisoners of Wall Street - with Hillary in the lead.

    4. Greece is largely Europe's problem, but it is in the consciousness of the American "man in the street." Excessive government debt, excessive public employee pensions, socialism run amok even by the standards of Europe, no faith in the tax collection system.  Our parallels are obvious. (In response to Obama's politicization of the IRS, Republicans have reduced funding to the detriment of customer service and enforcement.)  

    The Millenial generation has grown into adulthood amid the failure of Hope and Change in an era of partisan gridlock. As a result, a record 50% view themselves as "Independent", and their voting rate in the 2012 election was almost 20% below the 68% national average. The old saw that "If you are not a liberal at 25 you have no heart; if you are not a conservative at 35 you have no brain" suggests a relative advantage for Republicans, at least until the Millenials grow into middle age. 

    This is not to say that the 2016 Republican nominee will have a walk in the park, given demographic trends, but it is to say that the lurch to the left led by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid has been followed by Republican capture of the House, the Senate, most governorships, and most state legislatures, and that the "known knowns" of Barack Obama's presidency should bode well for a candidate who has proven that he or she can manage and who can articulate how a stronger America will make a safer world.   

                                   ----- 

    This week's video is a supportive explanation of the deal with Iran. The problems: verification; limited duration; the fiction of a "snapback" of sanctions with violations; and the enhanced ability of Iran to support proxy groups in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq. 

 

bill bowen - 7/17/15

Drones v Gitmo

    One of the many benefits of eventually turning the page on the Obama presidency in favor of a Republican leader would be an end to the bizarre impasse between national security hawks and the "progressive" left over the treatment of international terrorist leaders. At issue: Republicans have blocked civilian trials for the remaining "prisoners of war" being held at Guantanamo; the administration prefers to release as many as possible rather than capture more or accede to military tribunals, while killing them with drone or bomber strikes - in Pakistan; in Afghanistan; in Yemen; in Libya; in Somalia.  A quick update:

    - In January, the administration released five Yemenis to the care of Oman and Estonia, making a total of 33 in the past year and reducing the prisoner population to 122 from a high of 680 in 2003.  Recidivism rate estimates range from 15 to 30% based on the political leanings of the source, with several returning to leadership positions in Iraq and Yemen.

    - Of the eight convictions by military commissions, four have been reversed on appeal by the DC Circuit Court, and legal challenges persist for the others. Seven - including primary 9/11 architect Khalid Sheikh Muhammed - remain mired in pretrial maneuvering. Essentially the Obama/Holder Justice Department has been able to tie in knots the best efforts of the Bush/Mukasey Justice Department.

    - During the years immediately after 9/11, the Bush administration captured and interrogated hundreds of al Queda operatives, unraveling the organization and ultimately leading to the killing of Osama bin Laden. There is room for philosophers to debate whether the ends justified the means, but there is no doubt that the interrogations - three of which included waterboarding - were effective. They are no more. 

    - The June 14 killing in Yemen of Nasser al-Wuhayshi, the leader of al Queda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQIP) and the second in command for global al Queda, is a significant success for the Obama approach with AQIP responsible for the January Paris bombing of the Charlie Hebdo satire magazine, at least three attempts to bomb western airliners, and plans to bomb multiple US embassies in 2013. (In the confusing rivalry with ISIS, al Queda favors attacking the United States and western Europe; ISIS is focused on establishing rule over Muslim populations.)

    - More broadly, the drone program in Pakistan has killed about one terrorist leader per month for the past five years; with the combined total killed in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen approaching 2500 - including many civilians. And that is before the more traditional air campaigns in Iraq, Syria, and Libya. No boots on the ground; no interrogations; sanitary and distant. 

    The 2016 presidential election will inevitably revisit this "kinetic activity" which President Obama refuses to call a war, but which shows little promise of resolution with his strategies - or lack thereof. It will be particularly dangerous territory for Jeb whose brother greatly escalated the conflict with the invasion of Iraq, and for Hillary who was centrally complicit in Benghazi and as a central architect of the Obama miasma. For the rest of the Republicans there should be plenty of space for a serious foreign policy alternative.  At a minimum, a common sense approach of capture for interrogation, military tribunals for war criminals, and incarceration "for the duration" of enemy combatants would be a good start. 

                                        -----

    This week's bonus? What other than the final game between the Oakland Warriors and King James.  

bill bowen - 6/19/15

    

   

Jeb's Iraq Fumble

    Jeb Bush's recent fumble of Meghan Kelly's query of whether, "knowing what was known at the time, would you have invaded Iraq" was discouraging for the content - "yes",  "I didn't understand the question", "I love my brother" - but more for his failure to preempt the obvious line of eventual Democratic attack with a concise, but complete policy statement. What would that look like?

    There are three parts:

    1. What did we know at the time?

        - The Middle East is a perilous place, divided between the Shia and the Sunni; divided between Arab, Iranian,  Kurdish, and other ethnic spheres of influence; politically organized into countries with artificial boundaries; frequently ruled by despotic descendents of rulers put in place by the departing colonial powers. Iraq suffered from all of the maladies. 

         - Saddam Hussein had engaged in a war with Iran which had killed some 1,000,000 people. His minority Sunni government oppressed the majority Shia population, and ruled through massive intimidation. He had invaded Kuwait. After George HW Bush's victory in the truncated First Gulf War, Hussein took his revenge on the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south.

        -  Hussein had used chemical weapons against the Kurds. He had aspirations for a nuclear program, but there was no evidence of an significant progress in that direction.

        - Hussein and his secular Baath Party were no friends of al Queda and others seeking an Islamic government. 

        - There was broad popular support in the United States for the removal of Hussein. Congress approved the invasion in 2002. Hillary Clinton voted for it. 

    2. What has happened since that has given us a better perspective? 

        - To everyone's surprise, despite Hussein's having used chemical weapons a few years earlier, none were found. 

        - The war was more difficult than expected, particularly in the western Sunni provinces. Some 4400 Americans and over 100,000 Iraqis died in the war. With the successful surge in 2007, many Sunni tribal leaders aligned with the American-supported government in the "Sunni Awakening".  

        - In democratic elections, the majority Shia prevailed, electing a president, al-Maliki, who had no interest in reconciliation. 

        - Barack Obama decided to remove all American troops, eliminating any leverage that we had over the Maliki government, and leaving an Iraqi military that was inadequately trained and Shia-dominated. 

        - Obama further destroyed American credibility and influence when he called for the removal of Bashar al-Assad in Syria in 2011 with no plan to make it happen, then in 2012 drew a "red line" about al-Assad's use of chemical weapons, and did nothing in the breach.

        - The administration grossly underestimated ISIS, which the President derided 16 months ago as the Junior Varsity  - shortly before their victorious explosion across much of Iraq and Syria. There is no talk of an intelligence failure - it was a failure of ego and political blinders at the White House.   

   3. Most importantly, how do we apply that experience and understanding to what lies ahead?  There are no easy answers; leadership is needed.

    - We have two preeminent interests in the Middle East - prevention of a nuclear arms race triggered by Iran, and defeat of terrorism as represented by ISIS. The Obama administration does not give cause for optimism on either count. Unfortunately, much bad can happen in the next 19 months.

    - It is dangerous to remove a leader without a clear path to a stable preferable alternative. Iraq offers one example; Khadafi's Libya - led by European allies with US  support - offers another. In terms of human suffering a tyrant may be better than decentralized local rule by competing militias. In the absence of a better alternative, Bashar al-Assad should remain the leader of Syria.

    - The dream that the countries of the Middle East will adopt Western-style democracy has been shown to be false. The test for our support should instead be whether the rulers achieve legitimacy in the eyes of their populations. 

    - In some cases the boundaries created by the colonial powers need to be re-drawn. Joe Biden may have been right that the best solution for Iraq is loose federation of Shia Arab, Sunni Arab, and Kurdish regions, rather than artificially forcing the Sunni and Shia together.  If there is to be order in Libya, it may be necessary to have separate governments in the eastern and western parts of the country.

    - As is shown by the Saudis in Yemen and the Americans in Iraq, the use of air power without competent ground forces is unlikely to achieve significant success. Somebody's "boots on the ground" are needed - and some will need to be ours if success against ISIS is to be achieved.  

    These are issues worth of a presidential candidate. The exact shape is unclear, but it is certain that Barack Obama will leave a much messier and more dangerous world than he inherited from George W Bush. Jeb Bush's lack of preparation left him fighting a decade-old hypothetical instead offering a vision for the next decade, and left many Republicans wondering if he has the vision, the advisers, and the edge necessary for the job.        

                                                        -----

    This week's video is MSNBCs assessment that the Obama administration's strategy for defeating ISIS is not working. 

    

        

Obama / Kerry: Peace In Our Time

    These are dangerous times. Politics and polling aside, we are seeing the end game of the Obama administration's policy of withdrawal from the Middle East. Unlike Obama's domestic legacy, Obamacare, which can be absorbed and corrected over time, the administration's attempt to restructure the balance of power in the Middle East - away from our traditional allies in Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, and toward our 35-year adversary Iran - will have generational consequences. Israel has had the loudest complaining voice in the American debate, but Saudi Arabia is at the epicenter of the looming conflict.

    The problem has two dimensions:

    1. The potential nuclear arms race.

        - At least on April 2, 2015, it seems that John Kerry, his counterpart from Iran, and negotiators from the UK, Germany, France, Russia, and China have reached the framework of an agreement which, in exchange for eliminating economic sanctions, contains the Iranian nuclear program for at least ten years, provides extensive verification, and assures at least a year's lead time and a "snap back" of sanctions should the Iranians renege on their part. Details are to be filled in by June 30, but if the deal unfolds as it seems it will, the administration deserves credit for keeping the genie in the bottle.

        - Attention should expand to include Saudi Arabia which, by virtue of its oil wealth and as the keeper of the Muslim holy sites of Mecca and Medina, is filling the leadership role of the Sunni Arab world. Among the regimes to have long benefitted from Saudi largesse is nuclear-armed fellow-Sunni state Pakistan. The quid pro quo?  There is broad belief that Pakistan will provide nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia if asked; the question is now whether the Saudi's will seek the technology to match Iran themselves.  

    2. The expansion of Iranian influence throughout the Middle East.

        -  Whatever its other merits, the removal of Saddam Hussein in 2003 eliminated the major obstacle to Iranian ascendency. With the withdrawal of American troops by President Obama, the Iraqi Shiite majority government has migrated toward a natural alliance with Iran -  clumsily under Maliki; more carefully under Haider al-Abadi. For both the largest source of external military support is from Iran, not the West.  

        - In a fragmented neighborhood with weak central governments, modest financial and military assistance to Shia minorities has allowed Iran to dominate Syria with its Allawite regime, and Lebanon with Hezbiollah. The Iranian-supported Houthi movement in Yemen, brings the specter of an Iranian proxy to Saudi Arabia's southern border. With the removal of sanctions as part of the nuclear deal, much of the economic benefit is needed at home, but more is available for the proxies.

        - ISIS actually brings clarity for the traditional Sunni regimes - Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, the Gulf states - who are looking for Saudi Arabia to lead where the United States once did. The combination of a generational change in Riyadh, the rise of ISIS, and an emboldened Iran promise to elevate President Obama's most hated ally to a leadership role which the more cautious King Abdullah had long avoided.    

   The underlying question for President Obama - as we leave the Middle East to its own devices, will he, acting without the support of Congress, tilt one way or the other - as the officially-neutral Nixon administration tilted toward Pakistan in the South Asia conflict of 1971?  Much to the chagrin of our long time allies, the real price of a nuclear deal with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei may well be a tilt toward Iran.

                                                        -----

    This week's video is an interview with rookie Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas who drafted a letter to the Iranian leaders signed by 47 Republican senators explaining that Congressional approval is needed for any meaningful agreement.   

bill bowen - 4/3/15  

 

 

 

 

 

  

Defending the Defenders: Let's Start with Truth

    The behavior of the intelligence community post - 9/11 is a serious subject, requiring an honest and sometimes painful discussion. Ditto the relationship between local police forces and minority communities. Unfortunately, there is more upside for provocateurs like Al Sharpton and Sean Hannity in sensationalizing alleged misbehavior than in addressing the difficult realities, while politicians such as Diane Feinstein are so focused on their objectives that they do not understand the damage done to the argument, their credibility, and the country by leading with alleged facts that are easily proven to be false.

    The 6000 page Feinstein report on "enhanced interrogation" contains four key conclusions:

       1. The methods did not lead to the collection of critical intelligence;

        2. The CIA provided extensive inaccurate information about the operation of the program and its effectiveness to both lawmakers and the public;

        3. The management of the program was deeply flawed; and

        4. It was far more brutal than the CIA led lawmakers and the public to believe.

    The concise response by six former CIA directors and Deputy Directors - none of whom were interviewed by the Senator's committee - should be read in its entirety. Please do take a few minutes to read it. There is no denying what was done, and that in the heat of the battle there were mistakes made. What the directors discuss in detail are the results obtained - the start of the trail that led to Osama Bin Laden; the foiling of a Southeast Asia -based plot for a 9/11-type attack on the West Coast; the capture of numerous al Queda leaders, including the leader of the 2002 Bali bombing; much of the information in the instrumental 9/11 Commission Report and the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on al Queda. Likewise, the former Directors document their extensive communication about the program with the Bush White House, the Department of Justice, and leaders of Congress.

    The Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee felt it necessary to release the report in their last week in the majority, and Senator Feinstein is apparently still miffed that the CIA monitored her committee. The report will have a greater impact internationally than domestically as leaders from ISIS to Moscow,Tehran, and Beijing use it to undermine American influence, threaten our diplomats, and recruit jihadists. Domestically, most people will see it as a confirmation of what they already knew as they cheer on Jack Bauer in the TV drama "24".  It will be hard to start the desired discussion since the highly partisan committee led with the obvious lie that 13 years of safety have nothing to do with the CIA's aggressive actions in defense of the country.

    The response to the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri bears some similarities to the CIA report, in that it begins with a false premise which has made useful dialogue difficult. On the substance, we know that immediately before the confrontation with Officer Wilson, Brown had threatened a clerk as he robbed a convenience store, that he tried to reach into Officer Wilson's car and grab his gun, that the forensics and credible witnesses show that he was charging the officer when he was shot, and that a properly convened and instructed grand jury - containing three African Americans - interviewed 60 witnesses and reviewed the forensics before deciding that he should not be indicted. If we are to be a nation of laws, the system worked.

    The killing of Eric Garner in Staten Island a week later shows that a conversation about police procedures, community relations, and the grand jury system is needed in some places. Unfortunately, the anti-police Left had already used their ammunition in Ferguson where the story line was false - getting assurances of investigations from Eric Holder and President Obama, instigating riots and looting, pumping stories about racial profiling and police abuses. It was also inconvenient to the national story line that the cop in Missouri was innocent while the crew in ultra-liberal Mayor Bill De Blasio's city, led by an African American squad leader no less, was caught on tape and looked to the world to be totally guilty. Unfortunately, the public's attention span is short and the false narrative had been on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox beyond its shelf life.  

    If we are going to make progress, the conversation needs to be honest. Policing in high crime areas is difficult and dangerous. These areas are disproportionately African American. About 100 of the 400 people killed by local police each year are African American; about 20 of those are under 21 years old. About 150 police officers die each year in the line of duty. The great majority of the 6,000 or so African Americans murdered each year are killed by other African Americans.  Much of the violence is directly due to gangs and drugs, and less directly due to broken families, poor education, and unemployment. Very little is due to police abuse. Ethnic communities need cops who are representative of the community, but qualified recruits are hard to find. These are the issues that need to be addressed.

    Those who defend the public are due a debt of thanks and due process. One has to wonder what in the psychology of their attackers - whether idealistic or cynical - causes them to build their case on a premise that is easily disproven by the facts.   

                                                                -----  

    This week's video is a short autobiography by Janet Nguyen, a Vietnamese refugee who is one of the "four flowers", Asian American women Republicans who were elected for the first time in November in Southern California.

bill bowen - 12/13/14         

    

       

 

 

 

Secretary Hagel's Sacking: Two Views

    Monday, November 24, was a momentous day. Judging from CNN and Fox News the decision to not prosecute Officer Wilson in Ferguson was the only thing that happened that day. In Boston, it was the signing of free agents Hanley Ramirez and Pablo Sandoval to long term Red Sox contracts. Viewed from Moscow or the Islamic State, the big news was the forced resignation of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense.

    I. Excerpts from the KGB report to Vladimir Putin:

    - Chuck Hagel

        -- President Obama's third Secretary of Defense - Robert Gates (2006-2011; a heavyweight); Leon Paneta (February 2011 - February 2013; career politician; short stint at the CIA); Chuck Hagel (February 2013 - November 2014; a lightweight).

        -- Decorated enlisted Vietnam War veteran; successful businessman; Republican Senator from Nebraska. Served on Senate Foreign Relations Committee with Senators Obama, Biden.

        -- Early supporter of President Obama's desire to exit Iraq and Afghanistan. Accepted role to downsize the military (equipment cancellations, reduction of officer ranks), implement social policies among the troops (gender equality; gay/lesbian rights), and expand green energy use.

        -- Overruled by White House at last minute on plan to bomb Syria for chemical weapons viloations; upset with White House for not supporting Ukrainian government; sought a strong response to ISIS; sought clarity about policy in Syria.

          -- No friend of Russia - good riddance.

    -  The Replacement

        -- Leading candidates rejecting the position. Former Defense policy leader Michele Flournoy; Senator Jack Reed. All authority rests in Obama's inner circle; little chance to change failing policies; requirement for Senate confirmation and twilight of presidency preclude a candidate of import.

    - The National Security Team

        -- Dominated by Susan Rice as gatekeeper for President Obama. Rewarded with position as National Security advisor for lead role in lying about the attack at Benghazi in 2012. Little strategic vision. Loyal. Loyal. Loyal.

            * Subordinate Ben Rhodes - top deputy and speechwriter for Obama since 2007. No real experience.

            * Subordinate Tony Blinken - top deputy; background as political operative. No real experience. Nominated to become Deputy Secretary of State over choice of Secretary Kerry.

        -- Second in import is Denis McDonough, Obama's Chief of Staff.  Background as legislative staff member; some foreign policy education, but no real world experience. Sees everything in domestic political terms - as does Obama.

        --  Gen Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff since October 2011. Supports women in combat roles; elimination of anti-Islamic content in training. Advocate for allowing limited "boots on the ground" to combat ISIS. Tolerated - at least for now - for occasionally expressing views of professionals.

        -- Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan. Both tough and experienced. Safe as long as they stay away from policy.

        --  John Kerry - Secretary of State; former presidential candidate; former chair of Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Formidable, but consigned to failed Iran negotiations.

        -- Joe Biden - Vice President. Buffoon.

    Conclusion - Russia is marginally better off without Hegel, one of few in the Obama administration who understood or cared about Russian objectives.  Sacking is statement to others that strategic clarity is not wanted. The Russian door remains open.

    II. Excerpts from the report to Abu Bakr al Baghdadi of ISIS:

    O glorious caliph, behold the news. Confusion and fear have consumed the military leader of the Great Satan. One powerless eunoch is to be replaced by another more powerless. Victory will soon be ours.  

                                                                         -----

    The one Thanksgiving You Tube video with troops abroad comes from Germany. Nothing from the front lines - a comment in itself about the country's priorities in 2014.  

bill bowen - 11/28/14  

    

 

Confronting Radical Islam: Key Allies

    President Obama's Middle East policy is imploding, a spasm of activity seems to be disconnected from specific objectives, and we are assured that the deployment of an Army division headquarters to Iraq does not constitute "boots on the ground."  Egypt wants him to expand the fight against ISIS to include Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Others point to Boko Haram in Nigeria and an al Queda splinter group in Algeria. There is a real and growing concern about the spread of terrorist acts to Europe and the United States. With 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, over 3 million in the United States, and 44 million in Europe, we've got to figure out the immediate battle plan and the broader approach to the Muslim world.

    President Obama's September 23 speech at the United Nations provides a typically eloquent framework. True, it got carried off into the Ukraine, climate change, ebola, and Ferguson Missouri. True, it is naive in claiming that the Golden Rule is a universal aspiration and that Islam is a religion of peace. True, it would be nice if he followed the constitution and sought Congressional approval for his actions against ISIS before touting them to the United Nations. Nevertheless, his writers did a good job of laying out four tasks for the world community:

    1. Degrade and destroy ISIS;

    2. Call for the Muslim communities to explicitly, consistently, and forefully reject the ideology of ISIS and al Queda;  

   3. Address sectarian conflict, particularly between the Sunnis and the Shia; 

   4. Focus on the potential of youth in Muslim countries.

    Good thoughts. Where we were once concerned about a few training camps in Afghanistan and the risk to Pakistan's nuclear weapons, we now have proliferating safe havens, worldwide recruiting, and a greatly escalated risk of home grown terrorism. But who in the Muslim world will really lead the effort? There are a few options, each with some baggage, but that's what vision and diplomacy are about.

    1. Sunni Egypt. The Sunnis do not have a pope, but they do have al Azhar University in Cairo, the preeminent center of study for serious religious scholars, and the badge of authenticity for imams across the Sunni Muslim world. Leadership of al Azhar was comfortably moderate during the Mubarak regime, and is again under the al Sisi regime. Had the brief reign of the Muslim Brotherhood been extended, there would undoubtedly have been a change of management and direction.

   2. Sunni Turkey. The Turks have their problems - anger about rejection for European Union membership because of their Muslim religion; a restive Kurdish minority in the southeast who identify with their brethren in Iraq, Iran, and Syria; and internal politics characterized by a greatly decreased role of the military and a growingly authoritarian president. Nevertheless, Turkey is a democracy, is a member of NATO, and has a long history with most of the countries in the Middle East.

  3. Sunni Saudi Arabia. The Saudis control the holy sites of Mecca and Medina, and the world's largest oil reserves. More than President Obama, they have an existential reason to destroy ISIS, and were responsible for assembling the coalition of threatened monarchies - Jordan, the Emirates, Bahrain; and Qatar - which has joined the United States in air strikes.

  4. Shia Iran. The counterweight for Saudi Arabia carries big problems - support for Assad in Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon; the nuclear program - the dominant US interest. Thankfully, the jihadis are virtually all Sunni, and it would be enough for Iran to sit out the ISIS campaign.

    Hillary did nothing to develop relations with Egypt, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia, and Kerry has done no more. We are holding up arms shipments to Egypt because of the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood; we badger Turkey about their internal politics; and Saudi Arabia - well, they were Bush's friends. We need a Kissinger rather than a Carter.

                                                                -----

    This week's video - a 2012 visit by Hillary Clinton to meet with the head of the Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, where she was met with a barrage of rocks, tomatoes, and shoes as well as concern by the Coptic Christians and the Israelis about the Obama administration's support for President Morsi.

 bill bowen - 9/26/14

    

     

     

ISIS: The Three Questions

   To understand the war against ISIS, it is best to separate the discussion into three parts:

        1. Is President Obama's strategy logical?

        2. Can Team Obama execute the strategy?

        3. Can the American political class provide the long term support necessary?

1. Is President Obama's strategy logical?

    In a nutshell, the strategy is to engage a broad coalition, rely primarily on indigenous ground forces in Iraq and Syria to do the heavy lifting, and support them with American (and other) airpower, munitions, logistics, training, and intelligence. Implicitly this assumes retention of the existing Iraq and Syria borders with varying levels of internal regional autonomy, some cooperation from the Iraqi government, and no active opposition from the Syrian government.  

    Before getting to specific responsibilities and contributions, the concept of a broad coalition is easy. Intensity of concern about ISIS has several levels - first the governments of Iraq and Syria themselves; next adjacent states that are directly threatened - Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Lebanon; then the regional powers (Sunni or Shia) who do not want a rampaging jihadist neighbor - Egypt, Turkey, and Iran;  then the smaller regional players (Sunni or Shia) who fear instability - Qatar, Kuwait, the Emirates; then Russia which has its own Muslim problem; then the Europeans who have a history in the Middle East. One might expect that engagement - military, economic, political - would vary with proximity, but there are plenty of like-minded folks. Check.  

    In terms of numbers, there are more than enough local, battle hardened soldiers to take on the 30,000 ISIS fighters. Rough numbers include 270,000 in the Iraqi Army, some 550,000 Iraqi armed police and special forces, some 190,000 Iraqi Kurd peshmerga fighters, some 200,000 career Syrian Army soldiers, and tens of thousands of Syrian opposition fighters. All of these numbers are problematic, loyalties are frequently more to tribes and clans, and the Iraqi Army has been shown to be highly suspect; however, these are big numbers and the global arms merchants have had a booming market for decades. There is raw material to work with, and our military knows the territory and key military leaders in Iraq. Check.

    American airpower, augmented by a few allies, would have free reign over Iraq from bases in Qatar and carriers in the Persian Gulf. NATO member Turkey has refused use of Incirlik airbase near the Syrian and Iraqi borders, but adequate options are available far beyond the current rate of three to five airstrikes per day. What is needed is coordination with ground forces or forward air controllers to identify and mark targets. Syria is more problematic with well equipped and trained air defense forces in place. Partial check.

2. Can Team Obama Execute the Strategy?

    The first requirement of leadership is knowing and being able to explain where you are going. Within the past few months President Obama has called ISIS the Junior Varsity, called the moderate Syrian opposition a bunch of farmers, and had a public dispute with his Joint Chiefs Chairman about whether there might be a need for US combat troops. No check.

    A second requirement is to engender trust that you have a real commitment to the mission and to your partners. Playing golf 10 minutes after a national address about the beheading of an American hostage is jarring; renouncing use of American troops while asking others to step forward is a non-starter. More broadly, President Obama does not have any friendships to call upon in the Middle East - or anywhere in the world for that matter. Certainly not the Saudis; certainly not the Egyptians; certainly not the Turks or the Iranians;  certainly not the Israelis;  certainly not the Russians.  Each will act in their self interest with no reason to bend toward Obama. No check.

    A third requirement is a sense of competence for the task at hand. Releasing five Taliban leaders for an Army deserter is a terrible precedent for a war which is bound to be marked by hostage taking. The recent admission that we had no strategy for combatting ISIS was unnecessary and harmful. Our stated objective initially was to contain and degrade rather than to defeat and destroy the enemy. Secretary of State Kerry's back and forth on whether we are at war was troubling - we may not be, but ISIS has declared that they are. No check.

    In fairness, a key element of Obama's strategy is targeting of ISIS leadership, whether they be in Iraq or Syria, without the approval of the local governments. The Nobel Peace Prize winner has been consistent, and successful, in unilaterally using drones and aircraft to eliminate the leadership of jihadi groups in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Somalia. In the nuance of Obamaspeak, CIA and Special Forces operatives don't constitute "boots on the ground".  ISIS' leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi is likely to join Osama bin Laden in short order. Check.

     3. Can the American political class provide the long term support necessary?

    While purists on the Left and Right have joined a few chattering opportunists to oppose the arming of moderate Syrian opposition forces, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and the Republican establishment have played it straight in supporting the President's request. Check.

    More problematic is Obama's contention that he does not need the approval of Congress for the sharp escalation of engagement in Iraq and Syria, relying on a 2001 Congressional authorization to pursue the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks - a total reversal of candidate Obama's criticism of President Bush who did seek such Congressional approval for his war in Iraq. With 67% of the public favoring a strong response to ISIS after the beheading of two American hostages, the opportunity to rally bipartisan support for an extended campaign is at hand, but will apparently not be taken. No check.

    And a word for the skeptics: President Obama has consistently put off the political pain of Obamacare until after elections;  he has put off the political pain of immigration reform until after the November election; he initially claimed to be infuriated by the IRS targeting political opponents, but let it die down; he promised an investigation of Benghazi which never happened; there is a very good chance that in Obama's mind "this too shall pass." In fact, this week he has started a war on Ebola.  No check.

    What a legacy!  

                                                                 -----

This week's video is a short commerical from a small food store chain in Tenneessee.

bill bowen - 9/19/2014

       

Putin's Poodle

    Back in the 80's Margaret Thatcher's critics in the Labor Party referred to the British Prime Minister as "Reagan's Poodle". The two conservative icons sometimes disagreed during their largely overlapping and transformative times in office (economic sanctions against Russia; "Star Wars"), but generally believed in a "special relationship" between the United States and Britain as well as parallel domestic and foreign policy strategies. Both confronted labor; both favored a robust international presence.  Opponents of Thatcher's policies tried to appeal to British nationalism by picturing her as being subordinate to the American president, but the personal bond remained strong.  

    The parallel today is certainly not the relationship between Barack Obama and David Cameron. The Conservative Party Prime Minister has a large raft of problems - the potential secession of Scotland from the United Kingdom; growth of the right wing United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) which would seceed from the European Union; and the threat of jihadi's returning to stoke England's substantial Muslim population. For his part, Obama has made it clear that there is no "special relationship" - snubbing Thatcher's 2013 funeral and breaking with The UK on Middle East policy. Some of this is understandable, given the Left/Right split of the Democratic president and the Conservative prime minister; some is due to Obama's anti imperial world view as reflected in Dinesh D'Souza's "2016: Obama's America". If not Cameron, who is Obama's sidekick?

    Ironically, the world leader that Barack Obama keeps bumping into is not David Cameron, Angela Merkel of Germany, David Harper of Canada, Li Keqing of China, Shinzo Abe of Japan, Narendra Modi of India, or Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations. It is Vladimir Putin of Russia - and there is little doubt about who the poodle is.

    The beginning of the end of the relationship probably occured in Libya in 2011, when Putin allowed a United Nations resolution to protect civilians from the Kadhafy regime, and the western allies went on to support his overthrow and murder, ultimately resulting in near-total chaos. For Obama, the "leading from behind" euphamism was born; for chess grand master Putin, it was clear that Obama could hardly play checkers.

    The poodle relationship clearly emerged in Syria later in 2011, when Obama declared - without any plan - that Assad must go. Then came the "red line" on use of chemical weapons which was promptly violated by Assad, leaving Obama totally exposed. Putin grabbed the leash by getting Assad to agree to (mostly) give up his chemical stockpiles, Obama slinked off, and after three years of dithering the civil war is approaching 200,000 killed, ISIS has emerged as the greatest threat to world peace in decades, and we have no strategy. If we are lucky, Putin will give one to Obama; he does, afterall, have an interest in eliminating ISIS and he seems to shape events.

    The facts in the Ukraine are different, but the relationship between the leaders is the same. We and the Europeans encourage the Ukrainian leadership to shift their alignment to the west and oust an elected president; Putin takes the Crimea, we do little; Putin supports secessionists in eastern Ukraine, we do little; Putin offers a ceasefire with a likely de facto partition of the country (as he did in Georgia in 2008); Obama visits Estonia to emphasize that what is OK in non-NATO south central Europe should not be attmpted in the northern NATO countries. Putin yanks on the leash.

   Hopefully, Obama's national security team is smart enough to recognize the difference between eastern Europe and the Middle East. In the prior case, there are some messy border circumstances left over from the breakup of the Soviet Union, and it is natural to expect some adjustments when Russia has a strong leader and the American leader is weak. ISIS is quantum more dangerous for its neighbors, and for world security - if we have to accept a Russian solution in Syria, that is better than the Obama administration's emerging "containment" objective. Arf!!!

                                                            -----

     This week's video is from an old West Wing episode - hardly a case of art imitating life in the Obama era.

bill bowen - 9/5/14          

 

 

 

President Obama's "Peace for Our Time" Moment

    For those who have studied the history of the 20th Century, 2014 is feeling a lot like 1938, when Neville Chamberlain returned to London from Munich waving a treaty he signed with Hitler ceding Czechoslovakia to Germany, and declared "Peace for Our Time".  That was 13 years after the publication of Hitler's plan for Europe in Mein Kampf, two weeks before the Kristillnacht rampage against Jewish synagogues and businesses throughout Nazi Germany and Austria, 11 months before Germany's invasion of Poland which officially began World War II, and 14 months before the attack on Pearl Harbor which brought the reluctant United States into the war.  Chamberlain hoped that treaties and speeches would stop the Fuhrer's aggression and the British public believed him, much to the detriment of civilization everywhere.

    Vladimir Putin has certainly studied the origins of the war which cost Russia over 25 million dead. The Crimea with its heavy Russian population looks a lot like the Czech Sudetenland with its German population. Putin had already taken the measure of Obama and understood that, like Chamberlain, he had no appetite for confrontation. Germany's Merkel, Britain's Cameron, and France's Hollande offer "economic sanctions" challenges, but none has the military capability or desire to defend the Ukraine - and none is willing to impose severe sanctions which would cause significant pain to themselves. With Russia offering increasing military support to the "rebels" and expanding the territory under dispute, it seems that much of eastern Ukraine will eventually become part of Mother Russia.  The risk to Europe and to the world is that Putin will move on to the Baltic countries - Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia - which were once part of the Soviet Union, contain significant numbers of Russians, and are now part of NATO.  

    It is unlikely that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, knows the history of Chamberlain's attempt to appease Nazi Germany. (He probably doesn't even know that The Sound of Music was about an Austrian naval captain who  refused to fight for the Nazis.) What he does know is that when he pushes, he does not meet resistance. The Middle East structure of stable despots has broken down with George W. Bush removing Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Barack Obama abandoning the fragmented successor government, and a mix of western countries calling for and not supporting a rebellion in Syria. Into the void ...

    Like the British public in 1938, much of the wishful thinking American public would like to believe that ISIS will eventually implode because the horrific treatment of prisoners and non-compliant civilians will erode public support. There is bad news, Dorothy. World history from Genghis Khan to Pol Pot is replete with brutal dictators who have lasted for generations unless they were confronted by superior force. This is not a Hollywood movie. Hitler died in his bunker, overcome by Eisenhower's forces and the Red Army only after 85 million souls went before him.

    Were George HW Bush president, there would already be a "coalition of the willing". Virtually every country in the Middle East would like to see ISIS eliminated; the problem is that each has its own agenda - a restive Kurdish minority; the Shia/Sunni divide; protection of a monarchy; tribal competitions. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the United States has been the only cop in the neighborhood and Neville - oops Barack - has promised that our policemen will come home. After years of trumpeting his central international accomplishment being the ending of Bush's Iraq War, he admits that he has no strategy for dealing with the new reality.

    Hillary's 3 AM moment has arrived, and she was right. The murder of James Foley has caught the attention of the American public, but Obama and his amateur national security team see it as a policing matter where the perpetrator should be brought to justice. The career military and intelligence officials understand that in the short term it is about protecting Americans who wander into a war zone; in the intermediate term it is about hardened terrorists returning to the United States with visions of 9/11 or Boston Marathon attacks; in the long run it is about a real country with real borders  - a North Korea with legions of suicidal jihadis, an avowed intent to destroy the West, and, eventually, the weapons to do so.   

    Putin knows that he has a couple of years of Obama's promised "flexibility" to accomplish his objectives and will act rationally. ISIS not so much. The time to stop Hitler was in 1933.    

                                                             -----

    This week's video is President Obama's 2012 promise of greater "flexibility" for Russia after the 2012 election.   

bill bowen - 8/29/2014    

Leading From Behind: A Lesson From Gaza

    First, this posting is about American policy, not an apology or condemnation of Israel. For the optimists among us, the best path would seem to be the deal nearly brokered between Bill Clinton, Yasser Arafat, and Ehud Barack in late 2000 -  Gaza and most of the West Bank to the Palestinians, a divided Jerusalem, and a greatly reduced "right of return" for Palestinian refugees. That was a time when the United States was the unquestioned world leader and a strong supporter of Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and the United States had a president who cared and knew how to negotiate.

    Bill Clinton had carrots and sticks as well as words. Not so today. After six years of withdrawal from world leadership - in Iraq; in Afghanistan; in Syria; in the Arab Spring; in the South China Sea; in the Ukraine; with reduced military budgets; with the disgracing of the intelligence community - poor John Kerry cannot pull a rabbit out of the hat with words. What he could do - if he understood it and President Obama (and Valerie Jarrett) would allow it - is organize a set of allies who share our objectives, have skin in the game, and have been cultivated to take a leadership role.  Unfortunately, that thought process seems to be missing from Team Obama.

   Let's digress for a moment to the business principle of Succession Planning. Any accomplished Board of Directors understands that one of their primary obligations is to ensure that one or more potential replacements is being groomed for the Chief Executive Officer position. Some CEOs view this as a threat; competition within the organization is sometimes unhealthy. Nevertheless, long term company prosperity requires that there not be a vacuum created when the CEO leaves office, and that the successor has been given the development opportunities to be fully qualified and the Board Room exposure to confirm alignment of goals and values.

    If the United States is to play a lesser role in world affairs - either because a President Obama is offended by American imperialism, or because a large swath of the population wants to focus on problems at home - it is essential that we think about succession planning, probably on a regional basis. Who is strong enough, has enough at stake, and is closely enough aligned with our interests to be developed and supported as a regional leader? Perhaps Japan in East Asia; perhaps Mexico in our hemisphere; perhaps Germany and Britain; perhaps Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East. Each is subject to debate, but the point is that we need to understand natural regional relationships and develop those who are our natural allies - particularly if we are going to do less.

     Let's see what the Obama administration has done in Gaza.

    Aside from condemning Israel's attacks on civilian shelters in Gaza and calling for cease fires, the real work was in John Kerry's effort to convene a July 25 Paris conference to work out a settlement - and scuttle a nascent Egyptian initiative.  The participants: France; German; Britain; Italy; the US; Turkey; and Qatar (where the political arm of Hamas is based.) Not represented: Israel; Egypt; Saudi Arabia; and the Gulf States - all historic American allies - and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (which governs the major portion of Palestine, has long engaged in talks seeking a peaceful solution, and is a bitter rival of Hamas which governs Gaza and is committed to the destruction of Israel.)  

   Not only has the United States withdrawn from leadership in the Middle East, but we have decided not to have our long-time allies and friends of Israel fill the void. Egypt has long been the major Arab interlocutor for Israel, but has fallen out of favor with the Obama regime since the military overthrew their Muslim Brotherhood government. Out with the old; in with the new. Hope and Change.  The decision to deal with Hamas, exclude the PLO, and minimize the role of Egypt reflects a total lack of thought about who shares our values and objectives, and who can be developed to fill the vacuum we are leaving behind.  

                                                                  -----

    This week's bonus video: An April spat between Diane Feinstein and CIA Director John Brennan about whether the Agency had hacked her Senate Committee computer system. This week's lightly-reporter update - well, yes, actually they did. More grist for the Rand Paulistas.

bill bowen - 8/8/2014

    

Ukraine and Afghanistan: A Tale of Four Presidents

    Somewhere in academia - maybe at Georgetown; maybe at the Sorbonne - a professor is taking notes for her next class of aspiring diplomats. Case studies are the mainstay of business and law schools; this week's events in Afghanistan and Ukraine offer great sharply contrasating case studies for those aspiring to careers guiding their nations to peaceful resolution of thorny problems.

    Consider Ukraine:

        - The western media and the White House press releases predict disaster; Putin's Russia seizes the Crimea and masses thousands of troops on the border; Moscow- inspired thugs seize government buildings and hold fraudulent elections in eastern Ukraine, presaging a civil war; Gazprom demands billions in back payments for natural gas supplied to Ukraine; the European Union and the United States threaten escalating sanctions; President Obama gives a speech.

        - Then presto. Putin says that he favored the elections that the central government was holding throughout the country; the chocolate industry billionaire wins in a landslide; Poroshenko says that he respects the legitimate interests of the Russians and more "states rights" for the Russian-speakers in eastern Ukraine; Putin says that he wants an agreement that Ukraine will not become part of NATO; Poroshenko's chocolate factory in Russia reopens after being shuttered for "quality concerns"; Putin publicly eats Poroshenko's chocolates; an agreement is reached to split the difference on Ukraine's natural gas debt; Ukraine's military finally stands up to the rag-tag secessionist agitators; Putin moves on to solidifying a long term natural gas agreement with China; Obama gives a speech.    

        - There will undoubtedly be further issues between Russia and Ukraine. In seizing Crimea, the Russians greatly reduced Ukraine's claim to coastal gas and oil rights in the Black Sea; there will still be nationalist legislators in Kiev who want to look westward; there will be UN resolutions and patriotic speeches about the importance of international law. The reality, though, is that each country had a leader who understood the realities of power and could prioritize their national interests, quickly reach important decisions, and exercise enough control at home to satisfy the other. The shape of southeastern Europe was temporarily in flux; it is now back in shape.

    Consider Afghanistan:

    - The day before Memorial Day president Obama makes an unannounced trip to Bagram Air Base to meet with US military personnel who are preparing for a politically-motivated departure by the end of the year. By choice or oversight the White House does not let the Afghan president know that he is coming until the day before he arrives; President Karzai refuses to meet with Obama at Bagram. Maybe he would have hosted Obama in Kabul, but we'll never know. Obama gives a speech.

    - Karzai has long had a testy relationship with Obama. Maybe he resents being treated like a colonial figurehead; maybe Obama refused to pay the bribe that Karzai wanted to leave office on good terms. After 13 years and thousands of American dead, Obama talks of how important it is to have a status of forces agreement to let a few American troops stay behind and not throw away the hard-earned gains - as he did in Iraq after Bush's "Bad War". Fortunately, the two top candidates to succeed Karzai favor an American presence. Obama gives a speech.

    -  In the "can you top this?" category, the White House releases the names of the people that President Obama is meeting with - including the CIA station chief whose cover is blown, and who will probably need to be reassigned. The last time that a CIA station chief was outed, Valerie Plame in the Bush 41 years, the vice president's chief of staff went to jail. This time it, not so much. An innocent mistake by a public relations staff which made every effort to "unring the bell". Over at Langley there are a few folks who think after Benghazi that the White House is a bit short on appreciation of their role and the risks that they take, but they are just cowboys, and hired hands at that.

    So, for the final exam question: "Rank the four leaders in terms of which are doing the best job of maximizing the interests of their country, given the resources that they have to work with. (This being academia, give extra consideration to Nobel Peace Prize credentials.)"

                                                -----

    And here is the obvious solution to the VA waiting list /capacity problem. Duh!!

bill bowen - 5/30/14    

       

Ukraine: The Way Out

     In Ukraine we see the continuation of an Obama administration pattern that we saw in Libya, Egypt, and Syria - encouragement of crowds to replace the sitting government without a good understanding of who the players were or a plan for what was to follow. The first three were not strategically important to the West, but in Ukraine we are dealing with Vladimir Putin and a resurgent Russia. The problem is far beyond threatening e-mails from John Kerry in Kinshasa or a frosty discussion between Obama and Angela Merkel. Fortunately, Putin offers a way out if the administration and our European allies will listen.

     In his farewell speech, President Reagan offered the following advice on dealing with Moscow:

          "I want the new closeness to continue. And it will, as long as we make it clear that we will continue to act in a certain way as long as they continue to act in a helpful manner. If and when they don't, at first pull your punches. If they persist, pull the plug. It's still trust by verify. It's still play, but cut the
cards. It's still watch closely. And don't be afraid to see what you see."  The last phrase is the most relevant here. 

     Vladimir Putin can see through our cards and knows that we are holding a pair of threes. President Obama, John Kerry, and the European Union, it would seem, are afraid to see what Putin is showing them.

    First, the broader picture. The Russian empire is not like the western European empires which expanded around the world and could contract without directly threatening the homeland.  Instead, when the Russian empire has contracted it has brought rivals in force to the gates of Moscow - the Mongols, Napoleon, Hitler. With the collapse of the Soviet Union the European protective buffer moved 400 miles to the east, millions of former subjects are now members of the European Union and NATO, and the ebbing tide has left Russian nationals stranded in enclaves from the Baltics to the Black Sea. For Putin, enough is enough.

    Russia did not upset the status quo in Ukraine; the West did. Putin's specific gripes:

          - Since 2009 the European Union has been encouraging an "Eastern Partnership" under which Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus could integrate into the western bloc, with the potential for future membership. Russia has instead sought Ukrainan participation in an economic association of former Soviet republics, using Russia's longstanding supply of natural gas as a club.

           - In February, when Ukranian President Yanukovich defied his parliament by opting to continue Ukraine's alignment with Russia and rejecting the EU affiliation offer, he was overthrown. Within a month his appointed successor signed the affiliation agreement with the 28 European Union states setting off the current conflict.

          - Concurrently, the Kiev parliment repealed a 2012 law which formalized the right of minorities to use languages other than Ukranian for local government matters, thus stoking fears among the Russian-speakers in eastern Ukraine. Yanukovich's successor vetoed the law, but the geni was out of the bottle. 

    So, what would Reagan have seen? The European Union, notably Germany, is not willing to impose sanctions which would severely disrupt their economiies. The Russians have accomplished their minimal objective by incorporating the Crimea into Russia. Even in eastern Ukraine, Russian-speakers are a minority of about 38%, making assimilation problematic. Military conflict is unpredictable and subject to miscalculation, with the Russians posessing vastly superior forces.

    Fortunately, Putin has told the world what he wants , even if the West has been unwilling to listen - non-aligned status for Ukraine and a new constitution giving autonomy to the eastern regions where the Russian minority is centered. (Oh, and to keep the Crimea.) Non-alignment is not a new concept on the Russian border - post WW II the pragmatic agrement was to keep Finland and Austria out of the Warsaw Pact and NATO alliances which faced off across Europe. It didn't too much matter what the Finns and the Austrians wanted.

    In a different era, with different leadership, the West would be able to accept the reality that the push into Russia's historic sphere of influence is over. Hopefully fewer lives will be lost in Ukraine than in Syria before the realities are recognized and an accomodation is reached. But then, leadership requires the ability to determine a course of action and convince others to follow. As many have noted, we don't do world leadership anymore.

                                                         ----- 

    This week's video comes courtesy of Jerry Mrozek, a California reader and former schoolmate. Trey Gowdy will lead the House select committee investigating Benghazi.

       

    

Hillary's "Accomplishments": The Better Question

    The question being asked in the blogosphere and occasionally in a press conference is what Hillary actually accomplished during her "frequent flyer" tenure at State. The official Foggy Bottom response - the press office couldn't think of anything. In her own words, the best that she has been able to come up with is "setting the values and standards." The better question is: to what extent is Hillary Clinton to blame for the increasingly obvious foreign policy failure of the Obama administration? (Even Maureen Dowd is now criticizing Obama for trying to be a singles hitter.)

     Let's put the foreign policy record of the Hillary Clinton era into three categories: Subjects for which the Secretary of State had primary responsibility; subjects where the Secretary had a major seat at the table, but may not have been listened to; foreign policy subjects where the president or another cabinet member rolled over her.

    1. Primary responsibility:

        - Benghazi. Obama and Clinton may be successful in stonewalling official investigation into who told the military to not attempt a rescue, or who came up with the "peaceful demonstration" malarkey, but the Ambassador was her guy, operating in a known unsafe environment with security procedures which did not meet State Department guidelines. The petulent "what difference does it make" testimony was the lowlight of her tenure - to be replayed ad nauseum.  

        - Iraq exit. Any question of State Department facilities funding should begin with the question of the $750,000,000 spent on the new Baghdad embassy in 2009-2010. The primary responsibility for negotiating a "Status of Forces" agreement (wanted by Sunni, Shia, Kurds, and the US) to ensure post-American stability  rested with State. No agreement; total withdrawal; escalating sectarian conflict.  

        - Russia reset. Clinton famously presented the big red "Reset" button to Foreign Minister Lavrov in 2009, with a mis-translation of "reset" as "overcharged". It was an embarrasing joke at the time, but a premonition as we cancelled missile defense plans in eastern Europe, and invited Putin's Russia into the western economic system - only to be met by Putin's plans to recapture as much of the former Soviet Union as he can get away with.  

    2. Major seat at the table

        - XL Pipeline. On paper, and probably in the early stages of debate, the decision about the XL Pipeline belonged to Hillary's State Department since it crossed national borders. (The EPA and the Department of Transportation had no objections.) For four years the disrespected government of Canada has watched American environmental politics block one of its major economic initiatives.

        - Asian pivot. The Administration's code phrase for "the war on terror is won and Russia is pacified" was the "Pivot to Asia" in American foreign policy. Years later we have been unable to negotiate a trade agreement with Japan, the pan-Pacific free trade area has not gotten off of the ground, and an expansionist China is bumping into our allies in the South China Sea and the Philippines. North Korea has been delegated to Dennis Rodman to handle with his "basketball diplomacy".

        - Libya - Egypt - Syria - Palestine.  All major foci at points in time. No progress during Clinton's years. Some opportunities lost while "leading from behind".  

        - Iran. TBD. Time will tell if economic sanctions will be sufficient to convince Iranian leadership to terminate their nascent nuclear weapons program with necessary verification. If so, Hillary, Obama, and others deserve the credit that they will claim.

    3. Tertiary role

        - Fast and Furious. Most American discussion has been about the border patrol agent who was killed with weapons sold to a Mexican cartel as part of a sting operation. From a Mexican perspective, they were not notified of the operation, over 100 Mexicans were killed, there has not been an adequate explanation, and the Gringos don't care about them. Mostly Eric Holder's issue, but State had some role other than offering platitudes.

        - Economic bailout. The response to the 2008 financial collapse was led by Hank Paulson (later Tim Geithner) at Treasury and Ben Bernanke at the Fed. One of the key decisions was to use the Troubled Asset Relief Plan (TARP) to backstop the global banking system - primarily by covering nearly 200 billion in AIG insurance obligations on mortgage instruments held by foreign banks. Sometime in 2015 the Clintonistas will probably realize that this was actually Hillary's idea, and that all of the funds have been recovered. 

     - Communications security. The 2010 Wikileaks disclosure of millions of classified State Department communications was a major embarrasment to the government and the largest-ever inhibitor to diplomatic dialogue - at least until Edward Snowden's 2013 revelations about the domestic and global operations of the National Security Agency. Hillary deserves neither credit nor blame, but things certainly went south on her watch.  

    As 2015 and 2016 unfold it will be interesting to see what Clinton tries to take credit for and how she distances herself from the administration's central theme of reducing American global leadership. Joe Biden - still a competitor for the nomination - deserves credit as lead champion for the program of killing terrorists with drone strikes, and has been a major globe-trotter himself. In fairness, John Kerry's ambitious beginning and subsequent failure in Israel/Palestine, Syria and Ukraine offers Clinton some cover - better for her that he fails.  The Clintonistas will claim that nobody could have done better than Hillary did, given the hand that she was dealt; the Republicans will blame the Obama/Clinton "leading from behind" strategy for ceding the world to the Assads, the Putins, and the Xi Jinpings. Hopefuly nothing will blow up before January 2017.

                                                                   -----

bill bowen - 5/2/14

    

        

    

    

Ukraine: Leading From Behind

       As Vladimir Putin considers his next steps toward returning the Russian Empire to its highpoint of a half century ago, it is good that he understands his strengths and weaknesses and the interests of his primary antagonist - Angela Merkel's Germany.

    Some realities:

        - Having been invaded by Napoleon and Hitler, it is important for Russia to maintain a buffer between itself and the West. Before the Soviet Union fell apart under Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev it included both states directly taken over by Moscow - the Baltics (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia), Belorussia, Ukraine, and Georgia, as well as the further-west buffer of the Warsaw Pact (including Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary). Today only Belorussia remains in the Russian orbit, with most of central Europe having joined to 28-member European union. Most is irretrievably lost.

        - Neither representative democracy nor pluralistic capitalism took root after the Soviet Union's collapse. Russia's economy suffers from an extreme dependence on oil and gas, concentration of wealth in the hands of relatively few billionaires who scooped up the state institutions under Gorbachov, and the residual enui of Soviet socialism. Russia's Gross Domestic Product is relatively small - $2 trillion dollars, compared to $16 trillion for the US, $8 trillion for China, or $3.4 trillion for Germany. What's more, growth is stagnant, population is shrinking slightly, and the rich are good at getting their capital out of the country. Aside from energy, Putin does not have many economic cards to play.

        - But he does hold the energy card, and for Europe it is a high trump.  Russia provides about 30% of Europe's natural gas with a majority of that piped through Ukraine. Politics of the Russia-Ukraine gas relationship have long been stormy, with discounts in good times, shut-offs in bad times, and Ukrainian diversion of gas bound for other countries. A direct line to Germany was opened in 2011 and a third link, bypassing Ukraine under the Black Sea, is under development. Were the timing of this crisis under Putin's control, it would have occured in the Fall rather than the Spring. More to the point for potential Western financial assistance, billions of financial aid poured into Ukraine would quickly wind up in the coffers of Gazprom one way or another.

        Putin has taken the measure of Barack Obama and understands the latitude that he has - Edward Snowden; Syria; Crimea. Despite John McCain's predictable sabre-rattling there is little strategic American interest in Ukraine - certainly not in proportion to Russia's strategic interest. April 8 Department of Defense testimony to a Senate panel confirmed that we are going forward with FY2015 plans to significantly reduce the number of deployed ICBMs, nuclear missile submarines, and strategic bombers without even a token delay. We did send CIA Director Brennan to Kiev, perhaps as a statement that we couldn't match the Russians' 40,000 massed troops, but we could rally the opposition in the event of a Russian invasion.

        In his years in power Putin has been easy to understand, if we have tried. When Foreign Minister Lavrov calls for a loosely federated, non-aligned Ukraine - similar to Finland - he should be taken seriously. Crimea is different, a home for the Black Sea Fleet which is central to Russia's long quest for a warm water port. The rest of Ukraine? It is probably enough that they not be part of NATO or the European Union - and that they pay their gas bill.

        The broader picture will become the focus in the coming weeks. If Ukraine, why not the Baltic states, Slovakia, or Poland? There is a two part answer - neither of which is spelled O-B-A-M-A. First, they are members of NATO and the alliance is starting to demonstrate that it would honor its commitment to defend any member that is attacked. Second - and related - is that Angela Merkel, born in communist East Germany, understands post-Soviet Europe as well as Putin, cares a whole lot more than Obama does, and is not to be trifled with.  

                                                                ----- 

   bill bowen - 4/18/14