Tag: United States
Disgraceful could become unforgivable
Any president is entitled to the staff he wants in the White House. Getting rid of Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and Ambassador Sondland lies well within President Trump’s prerogatives. The President has to have confidence in his staff and in his ambassadors, who are his personal representatives.
But marching Vindman out of the National Security Council (NSC) unceremoniously, and firing his twin brother at the same time, is not the normal procedure. The President is sending a message: absolute loyalty Trumps expertise and legal obligations, including the obligation to testify in Congress when subpoenaed. Ambassador to the EU Sondland can’t be described as having any expertise other than direct knowledge of the President’s wrongdoing in Ukraine, but he too testified when subpoenaed over the President’s objection.
What Trump is doing is trying to remake the US government in his own image. This requires that he dismantle the merit-based professional staffing not only at the NSC but also at US embassies, the Justice Department, the FBI, and other institutions that might dissent from his use of government institutions for his personal political and financial benefit. He has already reined in the Secret Service, which is enjoying $650 per night rooms at his resorts, and the General Services Administration, which has turned a blind eye to his exploitation of the lease on his government-owned Washington DC hotel.
The Republican Senators who acquitted Trump last week of two impeachment charges know perfectly well what he is doing. Were a Democratic President to try one-tenth of Trump’s shenanigans, they would be screaming bloody murder. So far only two Republicans have opted for dissent: Representative Amash of Michigan has left the GOP to become an independent and Senator Romney of Utah voted to convict Trump of abusing power in his effort to extract personal political benefit from Ukraine. They deserve a lot of credit.
The Democrats should welcome their futile but dignified moves with open arms. That won’t be possible if Bernie Sanders is their nominee for the presidency, as his commitment to socialism will make him unwelcoming and also scare them off. But pretty much any of the other potential candidates should be preparing to make common cause against Trump with the likes of Amash and Romney, especially if more appear on the horizon before November. I don’t see any bar to tacking towards the middle for Buttigieg, Warren, Biden, or the lesser lights. Doing so would give the Democratic nominee a real leg up in several contested states.
Sanders has the advantage of enormous enthusiasm among young people, many of whom say they won’t vote for anyone else in the Democratic race. He didn’t however turn out a flood of supporters in Iowa, where a tie with Buttigieg was a much bigger achievement for the former mayor of South Bend than for the Senator from Vermont. Sanders is likely however to do much better in New Hampshire next week.
After that, the key is Super Tuesday, March 3, when 14 states and Democrats Abroad hold their primaries. Sanders is looking good in California, with Biden and Warren fading there. It alone names 415 pledged delegates to the Democratic Convention, out of 1990 needed to win on the first ballot. Former New York City Mayor Bloomberg will be competing on Super Tuesday, which may split moderate votes further. There are too many Democratic candidates in that space. Sanders is enjoying the kind of primary campaign that gave Trump the Republican nomination in 2016: the moderates on the right were fragmented then as they are now on the left.
I don’t say Sanders can’t win, but I admit it is hard to picture how suburban college-educated women and black churchgoers, two vital constituencies for the Democrats, will turn out for a self-declared socialist. Four more years of Trump’s efforts to dismantle government institutions and turn them to his personal purposes would be disastrous for the United States and the world. Disgraceful would then be unforgivable.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, February 7
There are reports this morning that President Trump may fire his acting chief of staff as well as NSC staffer LtCol Vindman.
The Atlantic has a detailed article on how the Trump campaign has mastered digital advertising,leaving the Democrats far behind. There’s a lot of disinformation, but Trump voters remain loyal. I was struck by the reporter’s talk with a voter in Mississippi:“He tells you what you want to hear,” Willnow said. “And I don’t know if it’s true or not—but it sounds good, so fuck it.”
NYT has a good collection of Democratic candidate views on several foreign policy questions.
NYT also reports that Iraqi officials doubt that the attack that killed an American contractor and sparked retaliatory raids by US and Iran was launched by Iran. More likely, they say, it was ISIS.
AP says Iraq is deepening ties with Russia.
Dan Drezner warns the dollar may lose its primacy.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, February 3
– Is Iran active in Afghanistan? Centcom head says yes.
– Is there US gunboat diplomacy in Venezuela ?Looks like it
– Why didn’t Israeli cabinet vote to annex more of West Bank? Looks like US pressure worked.
– Who made State Dept dysfunctional? Kori Schake says Pompeo is only partly to blame.
-Is the political center folding? A GOP consultant was quoted over the weekend as saying, “The only thing in the center of the road is dead possums and yellow lines.” GOP message guru Frank Luntz has more in this WaPo story:
By now, Frank Luntz figured that emotionally exhausted Americans would be hungry for unity, eager to embrace moderate messages and candidates who promised to find and claim common ground.
But Luntz, a longtime Republican consultant who conducts focus groups for news organizations, has been taking the temperatures of voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and other states, and he has found that “people are desperate to vote, but the center has collapsed.”
“They want the pitchfork message, not the unity message — on both sides,” he said.
“I wish I was wrong, but that fear of losing the country is deep and very emotional, on both sides,” Luntz added. “The Trump side believes the left is trying to overturn democracy, and they will fight like hell to prevent it. And the Democrats have a disdain for Donald Trump that I’ve never seen. This isn’t as bad as 1968, but it’s pretty damn bad.”
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks|February 3-9
- Making the Case for Sustained U.S. Engagement in a Transitioning Afghanistan| February 5, 2020 | 9:30 AM – 11:00 AM | CSIS | Register Here
In the United States, there is a sense of “Afghanistan fatigue.” While there are certainly valid criticisms that can be levied against U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, a significant amount of social, economic, political, and public health progress has resulted from our engagement and Afghans’ own hard work and commitment.
The under-five mortality and maternal mortality rates have nearly halved since 2000. Virtually no one in Afghanistan had electricity in 2000, but by 2016, nearly 85 percent of the population did. Women’s education was practically non-existent under Taliban rule, but 3.5 million Afghan women are now enrolled in school. 170 radio stations, hundreds of print media outlets, and dozens of TV stations have opened since 2001 as free media, cell phones, television, and the internet have transformed Afghan society. GDP per capita has tripled since 2001, and official development assistance (ODA) as a percentage of central government expenditure decreased from 206 percent in 2006 to 59 percent in 2015. The Afghan National Army is now the primary group fighting the Taliban, and U.S. troop presence has dropped from 110,000 in 2011 to the current plan of 8,600. But Afghanistan’s political progress and social gains are at risk of collapse if the United States chooses to completely disengage from the country. Given the mix of gains and disappointments, how do we establish the correct framework for U.S. engagement with a transitioning Afghanistan in 2020 and beyond?
Speakers:
Representative Michael Waltz: U.S. Representative for Florida’s 6th Congressional District
Rina Amiri: Senior Fellow, NYU Center for Global Affairs and Steering Committee Member, Alliance in Support of the Afghan People (ASAP)
Peter Bergen: Vice President of Global Studies and Fellows, New America
Earl Gast: Executive Vice President for Programs, Creative Associates International and Former Afghanistan Mission Director, USAID
- A Women’s Place: US Counterterrorism Since 9/11 Policy Roundtable| February 5, 2020 | 10:30 AM – 12:00 PM | Stimson Center | Register Here
We will be joined by Dr. Joana Cook, author of the new book “A Woman’s Place: US Counterterrorism Since 9/11,” Seamus Hughes of the George Washington University Program on Extremism, and Lauren Protentis, communications and national security expert.
- United States Strategy for Central Asia: Advancing Sovereignty and Economic Prosperity| February 5, 2020 | 10:00 AM – 11:15 AM | The Heritage Foundation | Register Here
The Heritage Foundation will host a moderated discussion to launch the United States’ new Strategy for Central Asia (2019-2025). Deputy Assistant to the President Lisa Curtis will join Ambassador Alice Wells and Acting Assistant Administrator Gloria Steele for a public address and discussion on the administration’s priorities and future prospects for U.S. engagement in Central Asia. Remarks will outline how the United States will support the five countries’ efforts to improve regional security, bolster economic connectivity, and ensure sovereignty and independence across the region.
Speakers:
Lisa Curtis: Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for South and Central Asia, National Security Council
Ambassador Alice: Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, Department of State
Gloria Steele: Acting Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Asia, United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
Luke Coffey: Director, Douglas & Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy
- Accountability in Syria: Achieving Transitional Justice in A Postconflict Society| February 5, 2020 | 12:30 PM – 2:00 PM | Arab Center Washington DC | Register Here
Join us for a book discussion on the challenges of achieving accountability and justice in postconflict Syria. Gross violations of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Laws have been committed in Syria. After a full cessation of violence, launching transitional justice processes will signal to the victims that those responsible for committing these crimes will be brought to reparation and that the time of impunity is over. This book discusses the available options of justice and how accountability will be achieved through international systems and a new hybrid court system.
Speakers:
Mai El-Sadany: Legal and Judicial Director, The Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy
Mohammad Alaa Ghanem: Syrian Academic and Pro-democracy Campaigner
Radwan Ziadeh: Senior Fellow, Arab Center Washington DC
- Escaping the Conflict Trap: Toward Ending Civil Wars in the Middle East| February 6, 2020 | 9:30 AM – 12:45 AM | Middle East Institute | Register Here
The civil wars racking the Middle East have torn
the political, social and economic fabric of Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya
and Yemen. MEI has released a pathbreaking book, Escaping the Conflict Trap:
Toward Ending Civil Wars in the Middle East, to deal with these difficult but
important issues. The book was co-edited by MEI President Paul Salem and MEI
Senior Fellow Ross Harrison, and includes contributions from former senior
diplomats, MEI experts and academics.
This half-day
conference will address the insights and findings from this important book.
Contributing authors will share their views about the individual civil wars, as
well as their regional and global geopolitical backdrop.
Speakers:
Nadia Bilbassy: Senior Correspondent, Al-Arabiya TV and MBC TV
Chester Crocker: Former Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of African Affairs; James R. Schlesinger Professor of the Practice of Strategic Studies
Ambassador (ret.) Robert Ford: Senior Fellow, MEI; Former US Ambassador to Syria
Ambassador (ret.) Gerald Feierstein: Senior Vice President, MEI; Former US Ambassador to Yemen
Ross Harrison: Senior Fellow, MEI
Anne Patterson: Former Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs
Paul Salem: President, MEI
Dan Serwer: Non-resident scholar, MEI; director, Conflict Management and American Foreign Policy program, John Hopkins SAIS
Randa Slim: Senior Fellow and Director, Conflict Resolution and Track II Dialogues Program, MEI
Marvin Weinbaum: Director, Afghanistan and Pakistan Studies, MEI
Jonathan Winer: Non-resident scholar, MEI
- Is War Over| February 6, 2020 | 12:00 PM – 1:30 PM | CATO Institute | Register Here
A scholarly debate has emerged over trends in global conflict and the future of warfare. Is the international system becoming more peaceful, or is it just as violent and war-prone as it always has been? Is great-power war a thing of the past, or has it merely been dormant under changing technological and institutional conditions? Crafting an appropriate U.S. foreign policy is dependent on accurately measuring the state of war and peace in the world. Please join us for a discussion of these vital issues.
Speakers:
Paul Poast: Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago
John Mueller: Political Scientist, Ohio State University; Senior Fellow, CATO Institute
Christopher Fettweis: Professor of Political Science, Tulane University
Bethany Lacine: Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Rochester
John Glaser: Director of Foreign Policy Studies, CATO Institute
- NATO and the New Decade: Assessing the Transatlantic Alliance| February 7, 2020 | 11:45 AM – 1:00 PM | Hudson Institute | Register Here
Last year, NATO marked the 70th anniversary of the founding of the alliance. At the start of the new decade, a united, flexible, and future-minded NATO is needed more than ever.
Join Hudson Institute for a discussion with NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoana. Mr. Geoana has served as the minister of foreign affairs of Romania, the president of the Romanian Senate, and as ambassador of Romania to the United States. He has held his current role since July 2019.
Calls for a reexamination of NATO’s relevance and effectiveness come amidst a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape. President Trump has been a vocal proponent of burden sharing to ensure the organization’s lasting success. Speaking in December at the NATO Leaders Meeting, he said the alliance had taken positive steps and “increased the numbers that other countries are paying … by $130 billion.”
How is NATO delivering on burden sharing and what impact does this have on the alliance’s ability to carry out its missions and operations? How is the organization adapting to a new security environment? What are the key challenges facing the alliance in the decade ahead?
Speakers:
Mircea Geoană: Deputy Secretary General, NATO
Peter Rough: Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Ken Weinstein: President and CEO, Hudson Institute
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Acquitted, not exonerated
You’ll be hearing a lot next week about how the Senate is exonerating President Trump of false charges brought by the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. Nothing could be further than the truth. Senator Lamar Alexander had the temerity to speak the truth:
There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’ …It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law….
The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday.
It was Alexander’s judgment (contained in the areas I’ve marked with…) that what Trump did, including in refusing all requests for documents and testimony, did not rise to the level required for removal from office.
If Alexander and other Republican Senators believe that the President is guilty as charged , they should have no problem with a motion of censure against the President, denouncing his undermining of the principle of equality before the law and warning him off from further efforts to enlist foreign help in the 2020 election.
Failing that, it seems to me the Democrats need a way of expressing their displeasure at the State of the Union address Tuesday. They might “take a knee,” for example, but then a lot of them might not be able to get up. Other possibilities come to mind: wearing black armbands in mourning for American democracy, turning their backs as the President enters the room, walking out as soon as he claims exoneration, or boycotting the event altogether. I rather like the idea of a boycott or walkout, but either would leave Speaker Pelosi alone with her adversaries, as she formally invited the impeached President to address the Congress and will preside over the event.
No doubt impeachment alone is a stain on Donald Trump’s presidency and ample warning for any normal politician against seeking or accepting foreign assistance in the next election. But Trump is a man who feels no shame, so that hardly matters. What matters, as Senator Alexander suggests, is how Americans vote in November. I am already convinced he will lose the popular vote, likely by a margin wider than the 2.8 million or so votes he lost it last time. New York and California, which voted against him in 2016 by wide margins, will tilt even more heavily to the Democrats, if only because the Trump tax cut actually raised taxes on many voters in states with high state income taxes.
Trump can however still win in the Electoral College, which gives a voter in a less populous state like Wyoming several times the weight in choosing the president than a voter in New York or California. This powersharing arrangement with less populous states was a necessary distortion of “one-person, one-vote” in forming the Union in the 18th century. It is now a grossly unfair anachronism that is difficult to fix, as it requires either a constitutional amendment or approval by more states of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Neither is going to happen before November.
Americans supported impeachment by a narrow margin. Now the Democrats have to make lemonade from the lemons of their defeat in the Senate. Defeating Trump in the election will require either winning back Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan (which Hillary Clinton lost by less than a total of 80,000 votes), or beating him Florida and Texas, where the 2016 results were close and demographic trends favor the Democrats but not yet by enough to make victory there likely.
Trump’s trade wars have brought little benefit and much harm to the US, the economy is slowing, the Administration’s main foreign policy initiatives (with North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, and Israel/Palestine) are failing, its immigration and voter suppression policies are racist, America’s allies are hedging, and a candidate who promised withdrawal from the Middle East as President is sending more troops there. Failure to hold Trump accountable in November would be an inexcusable error. He should not be acquitted again.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Worse than I thought
My initial reaction to the Administration’s “Peace to Prosperity” plan for settling Israel/Palestine issues was negative, but insufficiently so. The “peace” plan is far worse than I thought.
First, there is the map. President Trump claimed the Palestinian state would be contiguous. It is not. Even on the West Bank that isn’t true, and there are several enclaves in the Negev Desert completely separated from the main populated areas, not to mention an infeasible tunnel linking Gaza with the West Bank. Palestine would be like ink drops on a greater Israel:
Second, Israel would maintain overall security control of Palestine, or should we call it Palestan, as well as the Jordan River valley. De-militarization of Palestine I understand, and in principle Mahmoud Abbas has agreed. But that is different from allowing Israel to intervene whenever and wherever it wants, as it does today, in the West Bank (and presumably Gaza in the future). Nor do I understand why Israeli tanks are needed on the Jordan River: the Kingdom on the other side depends heavily on Israel for its security and isn’t going to attack. What is the purpose of holding on to the Jordan River valley? How defensible would it be if something were to happen, with Palestinians in the rear? If the purpose is border control, there is really no need for territorial control but only an Israeli presence at Palestinian border posts.
There is more, because the plan not only imposes unreasonable limits on Palestinian sovereignty but also gives Israel just about everything it has ever asked for: all of Jerusalem, all the main settlements on the West Bank constituting about 30% of the territory, and recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. No wonder Prime Minister Netanyahu wanted this plan out in public before the next Israeli election: it is a wet dream for the Greater Israel chauvinists.
The economic portion of the plan is mostly smoke and mirrors. Lots of OPM (other people’s money) going not just to the Palestinians but also to several Arab countries to buy their silence. The million jobs created is just aspirational. There is no real plan for that or other economic benefits.
Besides: nothing happens to implement this wretched deal until Hamas is gone from Gaza. I suppose that may happen some day, but there are no indications it will be soon. The plan is counterproductive to that end, as it provides a strong incentive to vote for more radical political forces.
The Israelis it should be noted get what they want right away. Trump has greenlighted the annexation of the West Bank settlements, which the Knesset intends to pass into law promptly. This is a real estate deal in which the land grab comes first, with vague promises of payment in the future, if the Palestinians behave themselves and accept a less than sovereign and independent state. That’s worse than I thought.
For those who may wonder what the Jewish community in the US is thinking, here is a video from J Street, which is closer to the majority liberal and conservative factions than the more often cited AIPAC:
PS: One reader reports that the video doesn’t work for him. If you are having trouble, it is also up on the J Street website.
RSS - Posts
