September 12, 2019--Bolting

We were having breakfast together and John Allan said, "With John Bolton no longer the National Security Advisor--whether he resigned or was fired not withstanding--unlike most other high-level changes in the Trump administration, this change will make us feel safer."

"How's that?" Rona asked.

"You remember, don't you, that when Rex Tillerson resigned or was pushed out as Secretary of State and Jim (Mad Dog) Mattis, among many others, quit as Secretary of Defense, we felt more vulnerable as they were supposed to be the adults in the room who would restrain Trump from unilaterally implementing policies that would endanger us, that would make us less safe. Like attacking Iran or North Korea." 

"And?" I said.

"And then," John said, "Trump brought in Bolton to be his third National Security Advisor, the first of whom, Michael Flynn, on the same day Bolton was exiting was in New York facing sentencing for admitting to committing perjury while serving in the White House."

"Yeah, Bolton was a five-year-old to Trump's seven-year-old self. That was our foreign policy team. Two impulsive children, with Bolton being the real mad dog--clinically crazy and in that way making Trump look good by comparison."

"Right," Rona said, "by comparison he would make Trump look reasonable."

"But Bolton," John said, "wasn't happy being anything other than in charge of foreign affairs. He saw himself as a version of Henry Kissinger--Bolton fancied himself the preeminent one in the Trump administration, making foreign and even defense policy." 

"The joke, though, turned out to be on him," I said, "Bolton underestimated how much Trump sees himself as the all-knowing expert on global affairs. And everything else."

John said, "Then there is the actual Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, who has his own Kissinger-like ambitions."

"With Trump," Rona said, "He will learn, there can be no Kissinger. Except Trump himself. I think as word leaks out about what happened it will turn out that Pompeo did Bolton in. And then of course, Pompeo will be the next to go."

"I wouldn't be surprised," John said. "But back to my point--how Bolton's leaving makes us safer. Unlike, as I said, when, for example, Mattis left we felt less safe. This is because Bolton is a genuine menace. He really wants to start wars all over the globe. Look at the mess he already made in Venezuela. And we know what he had in mind for Iran and North Korea. Wars. With us right in the middle of them. With North Korea, which has atomic bombs and intercontinental missiles."

"These are all good points," Rona said. "With Bolton skulking around the Oval Office and Trump crazier by the day with regard to his reelection chances, we could easily have had a wag-the-dog situation with Bolton urging Trump to start a war to distract the public and to gin up support for him as he faces a tough reelection battle."

With a wink, John said, "I couldn't have said it better. Though, I worry, a war could still happen."

October 10, 2017--Madman Theory

Desperately looking for some evidence that the Trump administration's foreign policy is not totally out of control, I have been speculating (hoping) that somehow in regard to his apparent unhappiness with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Trump's seemingly irrational, out-of-cotrol behavior includes some larger logic. 

I have written here that though Trump appears to know nothing whatsoever about history or the ways of the world, he apparently does meet occasionally with Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon's National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, and from Kissinger may be accepting some tutoring about how to act tough and be effective when it comes to international policy.

With the glaring exception of the Vietnam War, Kissinger and Nixon were able to do that. There was detente with the Soviet Union and the opening to China.

To that end perhaps Trump is learning about Nixon's Madman Theory. I was reminded of this earlier in the week when reading Robert Dallek's excellent, Nixon and Kissinger: Partners In Power, where he makes reference to that.

From Wikipedia, here is a succinct overview--

The theory was a feature of Richard Nixon's foreign policy. He and his administration tried to make the leaders of hostile Communist Block nations think Nixon was irrational and volatile. According to the theory, these leaders would then avoid provoking the United States, fearing an unpredictable response. 

Nixon's Chief of Staff, H.R. Haldeman wrote that Nixon confided to him: 

"I call it the Madman Theory, Bob. I want the North Vietnamese to believe I've reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We'll just slip the word to them that, 'For God's sake, you know that Nixon is obsessed about Communism. We can't restrain him when he's angry--and he has his hand on the nuclear button.' Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace."

In October 1969, the Nixon administration [via Kissinger] indicated to the Soviet Union that the "madman was loose" when the United States military was ordered to full global war readiness alert (unbeknownst to the majority of the American population) and bombers armed with thermonuclear weapons flew patterns near the Soviet border for three consecutive days. 

The [Nixon] administration employed the madman strategy to force the North Vietnamese government to end the Vietnam War. Along the same lines, American diplomats, especially Henry Kissinger, portrayed the 1970 [illegal] incursion into Cambodia as a symptom of Nixon's supposed instability. 

In 1517, Niccolò Machiavelli argued that sometimes it is "a very wise thing to simulate madness."

For the record, Nixon, though through traditional forms of diplomacy was able to make deals with the Soviets and China, the madman strategy itself did not work. 

Attempting to convince our adversaries in Southeast Asia he was crazy did not "force" the North Vietnamese to negotiate the end of the Vietnam War. We in effect lost the war. Over time we unilaterally withdrew our troops; failed to support the ongoing efforts of the South Vietnam government and military; and the North in less than a year triumphed and unified Vietnam into one country, which they then as now control.

So much for my hope that Trump's "madness" might be intentional and prove to be effective. 

September 26, 2017--Drums of War

I've been trying to distract myself but the insults being hurled back and forth between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un are scary and my distraction strategies are not working. 

The situation is scary because both Trump and Kim appear to have serious problems handling disparagement. This is psychological and cultural.

So we have the "Little Rocket Man" (Trump is obsessed with anything little) while Kim has Americans looking up "dotard" in the dictionary. It is because of such adolescent ridiculousness that a massive war may be impending.

Sharing coffee yesterday morning, Phil said he thinks at least five things may be going on, one or more of them may provide slight cause, he says, to feel optimistic--

First, secret talks might be underway in Paris about the possibility of a deal. Paralleling the talks that were held in Paris from 1968 to 1973 between Henry Kissinger and North Vietnam's Le Duc Tho about an agreement to end that war. This eventually worked out and things didn't get more out of control than they otherwise might have.

Second, Phil said, China might finally be getting the message that a massive war on its border is looking to be likely. They do not want hundreds of thousands of North Koreans crossing the Yalu River, seeking sanctuary as refugees. They also do not want to see a unified Korea which, of course, our ally, South Korea, would dominate. Given the various unattractive choices, the Chinese might pull the plug on the North Koreans. Cutting off their oil, for example, which would quickly cripple the regime. They could also, with us, privately, end North Korea's access to financial services.

Third, as has already been reported in the New York Times, it appears that South Korea is training a Navy SEALs kind of force to "decapitate" the senior leadership of North Korea, starting with the assassination of Kim. If this is underway, we can assume it has American backing and assistance. 

A corollary to this is the evidence that core members of the North Korean leadership elite are fed up with Kim and would like to see him ousted. A war would mean that they all would be viewed by us through the same lens and for them as a result the party would be over. Thus a few of them might be already sharing information about Kim and his movements with the South Korean assassination squad.

Phil also says it is likely that the U.S. has cyber-warfare weapons that have not been publicly revealed, weapons that have the capacity to shut down all of North Korea's power, communications, banking, and weapon systems. This, he feels, likely exists and is kept secret so as to discourage potential enemies from developing countermeasures.

And, fifth, related to this he feels it is also likely that we have other secret weapon systems similar to the bunker-busting bomb we unveiled and deployed in Afghanistan a number of months ago. We used it as much to draw attention to our capacities as to wipe out an al Qaeda unit. These new weapons might have the ability to track and destroy missiles before or just as they are deployed.

When Phil finished his list, he sat back and smiled. I stared at him, agreeing that some or much of this might be true, but as with all such weapons and strategies human error is the dangerous unknown so therefore do we want to continue to march down the path to war with the belief that we have the means to quickly disable and defeat North Korea?

Where have I heard this kind of boasting before? In Vietnam, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and of course Korea itself back in the 1950s.

I asked Phil how these earlier conflicts turned out. He knows enough history to say, "None of them worked out very well."

We were left with our coffee slowly cooling to room temperature.

July 31, 2017--Bring In the Generals

Reince Priebus is out and General John Kelly is in.

For months there have been rumors about replacing Priebus as White House Chief of Staff. Half the reason Anthony Scaramucci was brought in as Communications Director was to get rid of Priebus, who Trump had growing misgivings about but not the cojones to fire face-to-face. He appears only capable of doing that on reality TV.

So they tortured Preibus until he had enough and said enough. Big-bucks cable news and book deals await.

Kelly, a highly-decorated four-star Marine general will be moving from heading the Department of Homeland Security as soon as he can fill out the paperwork. Let's hope he doesn't forget to mention any meetings he had with Russians. Who will replace him in Homeland Security is anyone's guess. Maybe, God help us, Rudy or Christie?

Trump does like his generals. And he has appointed seemingly good ones in high level positions. Jim (Mad Dog) Mattis in Defense, H.R. McMaster as National Security Advisor, and General George Dunford as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Though generals are not by nature my favorite people, I am feeling good about these men.

As the Trump presidency continues to come undone, I am reminded of the last days of Nixon's reign. As he realized his time was nearly up, as the evidence became conclusive that he was involved in the coverup of the Watergate break-in, as he himself began to unravel, not sleeping, drinking heavily, and reportedly talking to the presidential portraits on the walls of the White House, concerned about his sanity, his chief of staff, General Alexander Haig, and his secretaries of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld), State (Henry Kissinger), and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (General George Brown) talked among themselves that if in a stupor he commanded them to launch nuclear missiles against, say, Russia, they would commit technical treason and not carry out Nixon's orders.

I am assuming that similar discussions are now occurring among senior members of Trump's administration. At least I hope so because as Trump sees himself more-and-more cornered, as only he knows the full extent of his dirty dealings with Russians both in business ventures and undermining Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign--with Trump likely directly involved in both--one sleepless night he might call for a nuclear attack on North Korea or Syria. With North Korea it may come to that, but to the generals who know best about the perils of such an intervention, it may be wise for them not to carry out a bomb-first-think-last order of this kind.

In popular culture, in films such as Seven Days In May and Dr. Strangelove, it is the generals who seize power and get their hands on nuclear weapons. But in Nixon's day and hopefully now, it may be the the generals who will save the country.

General James (Mad Dog) Mattis