March 1, 2019--Diplomatic Ju Jitsu

One thing about which we are certain--Trump has an insatiable need for adulation.

He is indiscriminate about where it comes from or what it is about. He doesn't much care as long as he can bask in the spotlight and feel the love.

He must, then, by some measures, be feeling quite satisfied by the reaction to his "failed" summit in Hanoi with Kim Yong-un.

Conservatives are praising him for not taking the deal the North Koreans put on the table--they would dismantle one or two nuclear weapons plants in exchange for Trump agreeing to declare the end the Korean War and removing the sanctions that are crippling the North Korean economy.

Trump rejected the offer. Conservatives such as Ann Coulter (who is on the record as saying she doesn't care if Kim nukes Seattle) can't get enough of macho leaders who stand up to blustering strongmen, especially, oxymoronically, weak strongman.

And then moderates and liberals alike such as foreign policy experts such as Richard Haas and David Ignatius are also offering begrudging praise for Trump's refusing to give up too much (like the withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea) in exchange for too little (the elimination of one or two nuclear facilities). 

Since the collapse of the talks, they have been praising him publicly for holding his fire and behaving as a responsible chief executive. Most, prior to Thursday, thought, distracted by Michael Cohen's testimony before Congress, that Trump would commit to almost anything to assure a bold headline. Even if he agreed to a bad deal.

Here's what I've been thinking--

Though Trump and his team are being criticized for not doing enough prep work to help assure positive outcomes, I am feeling that they may have done just enough for them to get the result they most desired--an obviously flawed deal that would allow Trump to "walk," as he put it, and thereby be viewed as either tough or moderate enough to reap the positive responses he in fact received from diplomats, world leaders, and (most important to him) the media and opinion makers.

Rather then seeing him as stumbling ineffectively he is now, about Korea if not Michael Cohen, receiving the praise he most craves.

Or maybe he just stumbled onto some fools luck.

June 13, 2018--Trumped In Singapore

He couldn't wait to get out of town. 

After a total of about three of hours of meetings--first a one-on-one 45 minutes with Kim Jong-un, then a brief lunch and another meeting that included advisors (John Bolton among them so Kim and the North Koreans could see the man who most wants to nuke them), then, like a couple of kids who stole their parents' car, after showing Kim the interior of the president-mobile (called the Beast by the Secret Service), and a brief press conference where all the questions were about North Korea and not Stormy Daniels, Trump hustled up the steps to Air Force One, told the pilot to put the pedal to the metal, and raced away before he could trade more away to the North Koreans than he already had. For example, casually agreeing without a quid pro quo to end annual "war games" the U.S. has for decades engaged in with the South Koreans.

What had occurred and who won and who lost was revealed in the maximum leaders' two faces--Kim's was all private smiles for what he had accomplished (getting the president of the United States, the president of the most powerful nation in the entire history of the world, to fly 18,000 miles for a few hours of handshakes and, especially, thousands of photographs) while not needing to agree to anything much less actually having to give up anything such as his intercontinental nuclear missiles that are capable of reaching Chicago.

Trump's face, on the other hand suggested that he was either choking on what they served at lunch or knew how snookered he had been by that 34 year-old nut-job who, it turns out, is no nut-job but a brilliant manipulator who should not be laughed off but taken seriously, very seriously.

Kim is the one who channeled The Art of the Deal while the coauthor forget its dos and don'ts.

Why this might be is worth thinking about.

Both men needed this meeting. Many assumed it was Kim who leads a country that is beyond falling apart. He doesn't even have a plane that could get him safely from Pyongyang to Singapore. Forget providing electricity or food for his people.

Trump was holding all the cards, it was thought, including the crazy card--his advisors whispering to Kim that Trump is so deranged and uncontrollable that unless he was genuflected to might actually bomb North Korea back to the Stone Age. Though most of the country already is in the Stone Age.

The truth is that Trump is the desperate one. 

Kim might have a few more generals and family members who want to topple him but he can take care of that pretty easily--poison them or let his dogs literally tear them apart.

Trump, though, has Robert Mueller. Does more need to be said?

As further evidence that Trump is off his feed was his pathetic attempt the day before the summit to trash Justin Trudeau, who, as a result, is not just off the charts in popularity in Canada but I have friends who want to lure him to the U.S. so he can serve as our president.

But the evidence I want to share about Trump's mental health, in case you missed it, was the semi-coherent spritz he offered about North Korean real estate.

He actually said--

They have great beaches. You see that whenever they're exploding the cannons into the ocean [Huh?]. I said look at that view. Wouldn't that make a great condo beyond that?
You could have the best hotels in the world right there. Think of it from a real estate perspective [!]. You have South Korea, you have China, and they own the land in the middle. How bad is that? Right? It's great.

In spite of myself I'm beginning to feel sorry for him.

March 13, 2018--Spatting With Friends

I'm spatting again with some of my liberal friends. 

This time about the potential meeting between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un.

They are sharply critical of Trump for so impetuously agreeing to meet while I, though I too have my reservations, have been asking them what are the better alternatives--Not talking? Exchanging insults? ("Little Rocket Man," "Dotard") Saber rattling? All-out war where everyone agrees hundreds of thousands would die within minutes?

Most frequently, my friends, though they generally feel direct talks are ultimately a good idea, contend it is premature for Trump to agree to meet before traditional forms of negotiation and diplomacy prepare the way for a presidential meeting.

As one put it, "Countries such as North Korea, rogue countries seeking the imprimatur of legitimacy, see being invited to a face-to-face encounter in itself to be a major goal. Trump meeting with Kim would be a sign of welcoming him and North Korea into the company of credible nations. Kim craves a seat at that table. And so for Trump to trade it away, getting nothing substantial in return, is not the way to make a deal with the likes of Kim."

All good points, I concede but continue to ask what are the alternatives. My friends say, "None of the above."

So again I ask, "What should we do?"

My friends continue to say have Secretary of State Tillerson and what little staff he has work on what they would discuss when meeting, preparing the way for it, very much including what the two leaders will say and do when they finally get together. What agreements they can endorse and literally sign off on. Come up with agreements about step-by-step plans for the North that include ratcheting back their nuclear program while we agree to drawdown our military forces that are stationed in South Korea. 

And, of course, my friends say, to make sure before Kim and Trump meet that there will be verifiable stipulations regarding how the various drawdowns will be verified. To quote Ronald Regan when dealing with the Soviet Union, "Trust, but verify." In Russian, Doveryay, no proveryay.

"Sounds good," I say, "But the sad reality is that Trump does not have a diplomatic team in place or anyone for that matter in his administration who knows anything about East Asia much less Korea. We don't even have an ambassador to South Korea. And so, considering all of this and the reality of North Korea's nuclear weapons and ICBMs, what's the best way to proceed?"

At this point conversation begins to lose velocity with my friends and I at least agreeing that there are no precedents to draw upon and, considering the type of leaders they and we are afflicted with, maybe we have no choice but to try it Kim's and Trump's way--roll the dice and hope for the best. 

With that hope based precariously on the very fact of who are our leaders. One, in Kim, whose favorite American seems to be the preposterous Dennis Rodman while those most on our president's mind also come from the media and popular culture--"Alex" Baldwin and Chuck Todd. 

Before we move on, to underscore why I am attempting to cling to hope, I ask my friends why they believe with a Kim and a Trump traditional approaches, traditional forms of diplomacy have any chance of succeeding. Even if there were the usual Republican foreign policy folks serving in the Trump administration or, for that matter, if Hillary Clinton had been elected and with her there was the usual army of Democratic foreign policy experts, with Trump and Kim why would we expect any of the traditional approaches to foreign policy to work.

"Didn't we try that?" I ask, "Republicans as well as Democrats, when they or we were in power? What evidence of success can we point to from the approaches of the previous four presidents, who, over more than 25 years, tried various strategies, from cajoling and threatening to buying-off (bribing) the North Korean leadership?" 

Pressing further, I also ask, "What did George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or Barack Obama for that matter accomplish with regard to North Korea?" 

And concluding, I say, "During those two-plus decades the North Koreans became a major nuclear power. That's what got accomplished."

One more troubling thing--a friend, who I suspect represents a somewhat widespread feeling in progressive circles, acknowledged that a big part of him doesn't want this approach to work because he doesn't want anything positive to happen during Trump's presidency. Not to the economy and not in world affairs.

"So," I said, "If Kim and Trump roll the dice and that fails won't we then wind up going to nuclear war? If this is where we're already headed, maybe, just maybe . . ."

March 7, 2018--Korea

Finally, maybe, perhaps, could it be at last that there is some good news from Korea?

Change often comes about in unexpected ways.

South Korean leaders worked hard to convince North Korea to join an all-Korean contingent of athletes at the recent Olympics. 

Even maxim-leader Kim Jong-un's sister attended, sitting in the VIP box fewer than 10 feet from Vice President Pence, who did not even have the manners to smile in her direction. (His wife travels with him wherever he goes to keep him from paying attention to beautiful young women.)

Things felt so frosty that it seemed as if Trump couldn't wait for Pence to leave so he could get on with the business of nuking Pyongyang.

For the new president of South Korea, Moon Jae-in, having North Koreans participating in figure skating and ice hockey was less about sports or medal counts than high-stakes geopolitical politics.   

Moon ran for office as a new-style leader who would not wake up every morning with his marching orders delivered to him by our ambassador (assuming we ever again have one) but as one who would find his own way on the Korean peninsular, especially testing to see if there is any chance to make a deal for some sort of rapprochement before we, "fire and fury," incinerate both Koreas.

That opportunity may be coming into focus. Earlier this week high-level South Koreans travelled north where they had substantive discussions with their North Korean counterparts, including in the North Korean delegation, Kim's sister--the "Korean Ivanka." 

After the two days of meetings Kim announced that he would order the suspension of missile and nuclear testing during any talks Moon might be able to broker between the North and the United States. Further, Kim hinted, he is willing to discuss the denuclearization of North Korea, America's and the world's ultimate objective.

Trump's response? Moderate. Reasonable. Rational. No tweets about "Little Rocket Man" and "whack job." Just indications of appropriately skeptical openness to Kim's initiative.

Could this be, might this be, perhaps this represents . . .

I am reluctant to compete these sentences and jinx the situation.

But here's the framework for a deal. Admittedly, a stretch--

We agree to discussions (remember during the campaign how Trump said he would be willing to meet with Kim, that to do so would be "his honor"). South Korea, China and even Russia eagerly await the results and, back-channel, encourage Kim to be negotiable. 

After a couple of months, there is the outline of the deal--

In exchange for ratcheting-back their nuclear program, on route to reducing it, the North agrees not to develop nuclear weapons that are small and dependable enough to be delivered by their ICBM missiles that already have the capacity to reach the United States.

In return, we agree to draw down our military presence in South Korea, withdrawing the bulk of our current contingent of 23,500 troops. The UN agrees to deploy inspectors on both sides of the border to guarantee that North Korea and the U.S. fulfill their commitments.

Longer term, the country is unified, following the examples of Vietnam where there is now one Vietnam, and Germany where there is now one Germany. To help in the process, the economic behemoth, South Korea, devotes trillions to the modernization of North Korea, which in turn over time also becomes an economic powerhouse.

Trump one way or the other is forced to give up carrying out any tail-wag-the-dog actions in a desperate attempt to deflect attention from the now rapidly encroaching Mueller investigation. He has to settle for stumbling into helping to promote world peace.

Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump share the Nobel Peace Prize. Trump finally, with this at least, reaches parity with his predecessor. 

OK, too much, scratch that. But they are widely adulated. Enough so that Trump decides not to run for reelection, reminding us endlessly how he fulfilled all his promises. How the mission has been accomplished.

In fact, if anything like this plays out, unlikely partners as Kim and Trump are, they would deserve a lot of credit.

September 22, 2017--Jack & Betty: Rocket Man

Between breakfast and lunch rush, it was quiet at the diner and so Betty plopped down in the booth with us.

"Don't get me wrong, I like when we're busy. I like the action and of course the money, but it's about a month since the season ended and I'm about burned out."

"And what about your other jobs? Are you still so busy?"

She smiled at Rona. "My weekend job runs 'til Columbus Day. But the house cleaning is tapering off. The people who tend to be here now, I mean in addition to us year-rounders, tend to be like you guys. Owners who are here for six months and don't require weekly cleaning. So, I'm getting a bit of a break, which is good 'cause my arthritis is getting worse." She stretched and turned her head with effort from side to side as if to illustrate.

"One good thing," she said, "I haven't seen much of Jack. Actually, he hasn't been in in a month. But to tell you the truth, I sort of half miss him. He stirs things up."

"Really?" I said, "I thought he gets under your skin. The last time we were all here I think you called him a hypocrite. Sort of harsh. Not that I disagree, mind you. He's set up with his state job and benefits and vacation days but points his finger at anyone else who is helped by the state. You pinned him about that. How he is oblivious to the fact that he too in some ways is on the dole. And though he rants about shrinking the size of the government he works for that same government he wants to get rid of."

With that, wouldn't you know it, as if on cue Jack bounded through the door. It felt like half the oxygen was sucked up by him. 

Before he sat down, he bellowed, "How's my boy doing?"

"Here we go," Betty muttered, "He's all pumped up again after having some doubts about Trump a month ago. You know, after Charlottesville and the white supremacist business." 

I did remember that and told Betty I wrote a piece about it. About his grandfather who had been in the Second World War and saw the slaughter that had been going on in Nazi concentration camps. What racism and white supremacy can lead to.

"That's right," Jack said, as if he could read my thoughts. "He's back!"

"Yeah, like Freddy Krueger," Betty said half under her breath.

"I can see my president has you all confounded. In the meantime, how 'bout getting me a cup of java?"

Betty hauled herself up and went to get it. Still muttering.

"How's the state job?" Rona asked with an edge. "Just rode up here on the Bristol Road and saw some of your compadres hard at work. Especially those flag guys who direct traffic where only one lane is open. You know, the ones that have signs that say 'slow' and 'stop.' How much are they making? By, the hour, I mean. Not that what they do isn't important, but the state needs to employ them? I would assume you'd want them to be contract workers. You know, to shrink the size of government. Like one of your heroes says, to make it so small it can be drowned in a bathtub."

"That's Grover Norquist," I said, "the anti-tax guy."

"You guys have your daggers out, don't you. Did you rehearse this? Can't even wait for me to get my coffee." 

Betty was back, and after depositing Jack's coffee just out of reach on the table, slid back onto the banquette next to Rona. Jack smirked.

"We haven't seen you for awhile so we've got up all this pent up material. Your boy doesn't disappoint in one way at least." Jack looked at me quizzically, "By saying and doing stupid things. He's a gaff machine." Betty had her arms folded across her chest and glared at him.

"You mean you don't like how he's behaving and what he's saying at your UN?"

I ignored the jibe. "So you're liking what he's been saying about North Korea and Kim Jong-un?"

"Not liking it, loving it. It's about time someone told it like it is."

"You mean getting us into a nuclear war with them?" Rona was incredulous. "That's telling it like it is?"

Betty said, "How, he said, it's getting close to the time when we'll have to, as he put it, 'totally destroy' North Korea and then referred to Kim as 'Rocket Man' on a 'suicide mission.' You're OK with that? You think that's the way an American president should address the UN?"

"Like I said, it's about time. Where has talking in diplomaticese gotten us? Let's start with Bill Clinton, then there was George Bush, and after that Obama. They all spoke the same language of reasonableness and diplomacy. With a few pathetic threats mixed in. And where did that get us? An agreement with North Korea about nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles? Not even close. Over the past 20, 25 years, while presidents of both parties talked this way the North Koreans developed A- and H-bombs and seem to be close to having rockets big enough to reach not only Guam but soon the west coast of the U.S. You think that's a good thing?" When we didn't answer, he said, "So, if you were president what would you do?"

For the moment, the three of us had nothing to say.

Jack continued, "That's what your fancy talk gets you."

"You think it's smart to call Kim Rocket Man?" Betty asked, "To insult him, especially an Asian is frankly stupid. It's a cultural thing. He's not Little Marco or Crooked Hilary. This is serious and dangerous business. But of course your boy if nothing else can be pretty stupid."

"I think you have it backwards," Jack said, ignoring his coffee, "Let's remember that for some crazy reason Kim Jong-whatever loves Dennis Rodman. Not just because he was a basketball star but because of his flamboyance, his cartoon-like, super-hero style. So, what Trump is doing is actually buttering Kim up. Remember during the campaign when he said he would be 'honored' to meet with him? That's a direct quote. What do you make of that?" Not waiting for an answer, he plowed ahead, "I tell you what I make of it--it's my view that my boy is flattering Kim. My guess is that Kim loves being thought of as Rocket Man. I doubt that he knows the Elton John song, 'Rocket Man,' or any of the lyrics. He may know Trump played that song at his rallies. Maybe Trump thinks of himself that way too."

"This is lunacy," I said. "You really are comfortable with your leader, our leader thinking and behaving this way when things are so hair-trigger scary?"

"I repeat," Jack said, "conventional politicians got us to this point. They're the ones who have acted dangerously. They kicked the problem down the road and now here we are. Trump is trying something different,"

"Yeah," Betty said, "Including leading us to a big unwinable war. You think China will sit still if we attack North Korea? We can only get away with that if North Korea acts first and bombs Guam or Japan. And even then we could overreact."

"I can't believe the three of you. Weakness itself is dangerous. If we continue to act like pansies what kind of message does that send to Kim? If you're interested I'll tell you what I think is really going on."

Looking away, Rona said, "Tell me. I'm waiting with bated breath."

"That behind the scenes we're having discussions with the North Koreans. Like we did with the North Vietnamese. Trump figured out that Kim wants respect and he's giving him a little. Enough to begin the process of making a deal. But, in the meantime, publicly, to underscore the seriousness of how we're taking this threat, Trump is behaving like a scary crazy man. If you were Kim and not the head of a suicide cult, I think I would take Trump's crazy act, and that's what I think it is, very, very seriously because we really can totally destroy them. It would be hideous, but we could do it."

He sighed and gulped his coffee.

"There's enough blame to go around," I acknowledged, "Clinton, Bush, Obama, and now Trump. He's the one who may finally take the steps to blow up the world. I think it's that precarious and so I really hope you're right." At that thought Jack was glowing again. "But try as hard as I can, I think the two of you are crazy. And I don't mean acting crazy."

August 12, 2017--Messianic Calling

On 9/11, President George W. Bush spoke in apocalyptic terms about how he felt God calling upon him to respond to the terrorist attack on America. And how in this way he found his purpose in life. To combat evil, he said.

He was comfortable with messianic references because they derived, as a born again Christian, from his evangelical faith.

We know how that worked out. We are still, 16 years later, fighting the wars he initiated.

Now we have our current president also talking in apocalyptical terms as he threatens North Korea with old-testimental "fire and fury."

We know that this choice of words did not come from religious belief. As best as we can determine, he lacks any. But, as with Bush, they come from deep within him.

His is a secular narcissistic messianism.

Colloquially, he speaks about North Korea and his calling--

"Bill Clinton didn't get it done. Bush didn't get it done. Obama didn't get it done. Someone has to do it. It might as well be me." As with everything else, between rounds of golf, he shrugs his shoulders and matter-of-factly indicates it will be easy. He tells us and them he is "locked and loaded" with nuclear weapons.

I suspect, if he pushes the button, we know how that will work out.

Among other things we won't any longer be talking about Obamacare or collusion with Russia and, at least initially, his approval ratings will soar.

October 8, 2014--E=MC2

The speed of light is very fast, in fact there is nothing faster in the universe. It is a very big number--light travels at 186,000 miles per second, or 299,792,458 miles an hour, which means that the light emanating from the sun, which is about 93 million miles from Earth, takes only 8 minutes and 20 seconds to reach us.

But on a cosmic scale, this is small potatoes.

The galaxy in which our solar system is located is so huge that that hugeness is expressed not in miles but in light years--how many miles light travels in a year. At 186,000 per second, that's very, very far. To give you a sense of that, our galaxy, the disk of the Milky Way, is about 100,000 light years in diameter.

Then, the ultimate measurement, our universe, everything that there is, is 93 billion light years in size, an almost infinitely large number to comprehend.

I have been thinking about the speed of light because a friend, Leslie Woodhead, is writing a book about the Atomic Era, not so much about the science as about the cultural and political consequence of a world full of atomic weapons. He wants to interview me because I am obsessed with The Bomb and how it has affected life on our planet. To satisfy my obsession, I have read and thought much about these issues. In addition, since he's British he wants to gather reflections from Americans who lived as youngsters through the early days of the Atomic Era and Cold War. I qualify in that regard as well.

In thinking what to say to him, I have dipped a bit into the science of the A-Bomb, especially the theory Einstein developed that defined and quantified the convertibility of mass to energy. As evidence and to demonstrate what that would mean in practical terms, converting a relatively smallish mass of Uranium-235 or Plutonium into a massive amount of energy (an atomic explosion), he propounded perhaps the most famous of all mathematical equations--E=MC2, with E representing Energy, M Mass, and C-squared the speed of light times itself.

With the speed of light by far the latest number in the equation, and then squaring it (multiplying it by itself), and then multiplying it additionally by the mass in question, reveals how such a powerful explosion could result in converting such a relatively small mass of radioactive material into energy--the cataclysmic force of an atomic explosion.

For example, a bomb weighing less than 10 tons with a Uranium-235 core weighing only141 pounds of which just one kilogram (2.2 pounds) underwent nuclear fission, an atomic bomb called Little Boy, was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945, exploded with the force of 63,000 tons of TNT. Tons. And killed 135,000 Japanese.

I will want to talk with Leslie about take-cover drills in school where we were taught to dive under our desks if we saw a "blinding flash of light" from an A-Bomb exploding over Times Square, ground zero; and how, after the end of World War II, under Cold War pressure all presidents from Truman to Eisenhower to Kennedy to Johnson to Nixon were under pressure from their military advisers to use nuclear weapons preemptively, in turn, against the Soviets, the North Koreans, Cubans, and Vietnamese; and how this led to the establishment of a "national security state" with inordinate power accruing to the President with Congress assigned a subsidiary role, effectively resulting in  the end of  the Founders' concept of the "separation of powers."

But it will be hard to not be thinking about E=MC2, the speed of light, that kilogram of U-235, and those 135,000 killed that August.

November 25, 2013--Good Cop, Bad Cop

Thinking about the deal just struck with Iran to scale back its nuclear program in exchange for some loosening of sanctions, wouldn't it have been brilliant if Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu had had this conversation three month ago--

Obama: Bibi?

Netanyahu: Barry?

Obama: Can you talk?

Netanyahu: As long as your NSA isn't tapping my phone. (He chuckles.)

Obama: Or your Mossad. (He chuckles.)

Netanyahu: I told them to take the afternoon off. I'm all ears, Barry.

Obama: So here's what I'm thinking, Bibi.

Netanyahu: Shoot.

Obama: That's why I called.

Netanyahu: I'm not following you.

Obama: About shooting. Actually bombing.

Netanyahu: Go on.

Obama: Look, we both know we don't want to bomb Iran.

Netanyahu: True. Though we have to keep the heat on them and the best way to do that--we both agreed--is to convince them we're prepared to do so. Israel especially.

Obama: That's what we agreed to. You'd be the bad cop and we'd be, sort of, the good cop. You'd publicly put pressure on me to draw red lines. To state that though we want diplomacy to work every option is on the table. Including military action. But we'd emphasize negotiations while you'd press for bombing.

Netanyahu: And I'd keep prodding, critiquing your Iran policy, and playing your Israel Lobby both in Congress and the Jewish community in the states. To convince the Iranians that though you might be rational and reasonable we're out of control. Particularly your control. That we're prepared to go it alone, go rogue--to quote one of your favorite politicians. (Obama chuckles.)

Obama: So, here's my new plan.

Netanyahu: I'm listening.

Obama: We get Kerry to start talking with the new Iranian regime, telling them that our Congress, including all sorts of Democrats, are chomping at the bit to increase the sanctions--they're so serious that they're even willing to override my veto--and that you guys are getting ready to arm your nukes. He tells the Iranians that if we don't get some sort of deal done in the next few months who knows what the Israelis will do. That I can't keep you on hold.

Netanyahu: Great plan! So as soon as we hang up I'll give the order here to move to a higher state of readiness as evidence of our seriousness or, if you prefer, our craziness.

Obama: Exactly, Bibi. The more we ramp up the diplomacy the more crazier you behave. We have to scare the you-know-what out of them.

Netanyahu: I love it. You'll work out some kind of deal that's good for us--at least the beginning of a long-term deal--which will also be good for you. It will get the Republicans off your back--talk about crazies--at least for awhile.

Obama: Maybe for half an hour. (Netanyahu chuckles.)

Netanyahu: I hear clicking on the line. Are you sure the NSA doesn't have this phone bugged?

November 20, 2013--Bomb, Bomb, Bomb . . . Bomb Iran

Here's what has me worried--

As dramatically weakened Barack Obama confronts three more years of his presidency, with the unlikelihood of anything, anything being approved by Congress (it will get even worse after Republican victories in the upcoming midterm elections), as with other presidents who had second-term problems, he will likely be tempted to do something dramatic in foreign affairs where as commander in chief he has considerable independent authority and the ability to act without congressional approval.

This is not in itself a bad thing--plagued by sex scandals, Bill Clinton almost pulled off an historic deal between the Israelis and Palestinians; Ronald Reagan negotiated significant disarmament agreements with the Soviets; and even Richard Nixon made progress in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

But then there is the wag-the-dog problem--the temptation to get involved in overseas adventures to distract the public or repair tarnished presidential reputations. If was thought, for example, that to change the subject from Monica Lewinski and her blue dress, Clinton was itching to go to war in the Balkans.

Obama is on the ropes. The botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act is just the most recent in a string of failures that has ruined his political reputation and seen his approval ratings sink to George W. Bush levels.

On that list of failures and blunders is his now infamous pledge to draw a red line in Syria--if Bashar al-Assad crossed it and used chemical weapons against the rebels, Obama forcefully stated, the United States would take military action against the regime.

Assad did cross that red line and Obama backed down. He ordered lots os saber rattling but no intervention. The situation was saved by Russian President Putin who put pressure on his Syrian allies to give up their WMD program, which they are proceeding to do under UN supervision.

This failure to follow through has ruined Obama's reputation in that region.

Not only do the Israelis distrust him--if he failed to act in Syria what is his word worth when it comes to Iran where he has drawn another redline about Iran's nuclear capabilities?--now our other allies, the Saudis, Turkey, and Jordan, wonder if we will come to their assistance if the Iranians develop nuclear weapons or there are threats to their survival.

Clearly Obama wants to make a deal with the new, seemingly more moderate Iranian leaders. In fact, an initial, interim agreement may be struck as early as this week. This is not just a good thing for Obama's political reputation but a good thing in itself. We have to find a way to pull back from the brink. If Iran goes nuclear, it is virtually certain that the Saudis, Egyptians, and Turks will as well. This is not a part of the world where we want to see a nuclear arms race.

But beyond diplomacy, with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu marshaling local as well as U.S. congressional opposition to any deal with Iran, threatening to take unilateral military action against Iran's nuclear facilities, the political pressure on Obama--at this vulnerable time in his presidency--is almost beyond calculation.

The temptation to show that his word is good--especially when it comes to staking out positions in the world where there are threats to our allies and to our own security--may impel President Obama to want to show some muscle.

He hasn't done very much of that with Congress and other than killing Osama bin Ladin and numerous al Qaeda leaders with drones (which is generally commendable), Obama has been a disengaged, passive leader more including to deliver speeches than exert forceful leadership.

One place where he can take a form of forceful action is in Iran where he can join the Israelis in bombing their uranium enrichment facilities in an attempt to set back their nuclear clock.

This could in time be necessary. But diplomacy may now be working and it will require considerable courage from Obama to fend off pressure from Israel and Congress to keep talking and dealing with the Iranians.

October 30, 2013--Garrison State

I've been reading about President Eisenhower--a more interesting and complex man than popularly remembered. He was not just an overachiever--supreme commander of allied forces during the Second World War or the bumbling political amateur who in 1952, mainly through his open smile, was elected to the first of two terms as president.

He may have seemed more interested in playing bridge than governing and may have appeared to be more focused on his putting than foreign affairs, but that is a self-deprecating image he carefully cultivated. He famously said to an aide just before a critical press conference, "Don't worry, I'll confuse them." And he did!

By pretending to be less than he in fact was, he enhanced his power to steer the country through perilous times. Recall, he served during the height of the Cold War when there was the real possibility that America and the Soviets would become involved in a civilization-ending nuclear war.

He is best known and most highly regarded by liberals for his farewell address in which he warned about the spreading power of the "military-industrial complex." But there is more in that speech, largely overlooked, that offers additional lessons for our own time--Eisenhower's concern that in our fear of an atomic attack by the Soviets we would become what he called a "garrison state"; and in so becoming, run the danger of losing basic civil liberties and irrevocably altering the democratic character of our country.

At the time, policymakers and the public had little reliable information about the nature of the Soviet threat and this uncertainty added to the fear citizens felt. This fear, among some, turned into paranoia, Red-baiting witch-hunts, and calls for unbridled military spending to meet the unknown and therefore menacing nature of Soviet military power.

Eisenhower was concerned that fear-driven loose talk about the nature of Soviet intentions could in itself be dangerous to U.S. security. He felt that Soviet capacity for war was being overstated by self-interested military leaders and demagogues such as Senator Joseph McCarthy. 

Additionally, he contended, there was a high price to pay for exaggerating Soviet motivations. That paying too much attention to the alleged military potential of the Soviet Union would turn the United States into a state armed beyond our needs; deeply in debt because of all the military spending; with the economy, as a result, dominated by the arms race. And, because of the fear of external, and more significant, purported internal enemies, we were in danger of seeing our civil liberties eroded.


As, during the Red scare, they were.


From his farewell address, in Eisenhower's words—

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. 

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

We would do well today to heed these words. 

We are becoming a national security state in which most of our resources are being diverted to defense spending. Fearing terrorism--as Americans in the 50s feared communism and Soviet threats--the public is passive as we spend most of our national treasure on weapon systems we do not in fact need; run up massive debts to pay for them; and, most distressing, overwhelmed by fear, seem complacent when an every-expanding government tramples on constitutional rights to privacy and free expression.