The Serious Foreign Policy Thread--Bolton Cleans House

[Dill]

Our NATO allies have protested a Russian attack on their soil.

Vladimir Putin’s Toxic Reach
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/opinion/russia-spy-poison-britain.html

Followed by another mysterious Russian's death in London. And Putin refuses to respond to our ally, Britain.
While Trump . . . does what?

Russian businessman with ties to Putin critic dies in London
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-uk-russian-death-20180313-story.html

All this as a chaotic White House insists it will meet with North Korea, and no word from North Korea, no apparent ground plan.

Trump agrees to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on denuclearization
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/major-announcement-coming-south-korea-north-korea-trump/story?id=53621671

Then Tillerson is fired by public Tweet.


Trump abruptly ousts Tillerson as secretary of State and nominates CIA chief to replace him
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-tillerson-ousted-20180313-story.html

This shake up of an already understaffed State Department--the loss of the last person restraining Trump from canceling the Iran Deal--comes at a moment of suddenly increasing international conflict and high stakes diplomacy.
But Trump promises a "bigger shake up" of his cabinet soon, says he is finally getting the right team in place--people who don't challenge him, apparently.

I am curious to hear others' reactions to all this. Does the coming shake up mean he will get rid of Kushner, or Kelly, or Mattis? Or might that only refer to smaller fish like the embarrassing Devos?

Is this the unstable Trump randomly lashing out? How does this look to our allies, or worse, to Putin and Kim Jong Eun?

What if he finally trashes the Iran Deal. That would be a sign of "strength" to Trump supporters in the U.S., but how would the rest of the world view the chaos?  What opportunities would Russia, NK and Pakistan and China see in the diplomatic wreckage? Though trashing the deal would not be in Russia's interest, the propaganda coup would be tremendous, making Russia appear a more stable partner than the U.S. to many in the Middle East.

[GMDino]

Everything is going just fine so far....


https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/29177196_2037463209846442_9109016699297788857_n.png?oh=df5146ddfcd0ea91fe1dcbbd2069c160&oe=5B023DC2

Quote:Trump suggests US Military may build a Space Force
[/url][url=https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Trump%20suggests%20US%20Military%20may%20build%20a%20Space%20Force&via=nbcnews&url=https://www.nbcnews.com/video/trump-suggests-us-military-may-build-a-space-force-1185104963594&original_referer=https://www.nbcnews.com/video/trump-suggests-us-military-may-build-a-space-force-1185104963594]

While addressing troops at the Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, outside San Diego, California, President Trump called for new security efforts in outer space.

“We should have a new force called the 'Space Force,'" Trump said during comments about the arrival of more modern machinery and equipment for the U.S. military.

Sorry Dill.    Nothing serious about this guy.  

[StLucieBengal]

The guy just leads differently. He wants chaos and competition. And feels it brings out the best in others. It’s an older system of leadership but does work. The problem is you run so hot all the time people burn out. It’s stressful. The key is having a deep bench to hire from which he obviously does.

[Dill]

(03-13-2018, 08:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/29177196_2037463209846442_9109016699297788857_n.png?oh=df5146ddfcd0ea91fe1dcbbd2069c160&oe=5B023DC2

Sorry Dill.    Nothing serious about this guy.  

I must kindly ask you to stick to  . . . oh wait, I guess space could be considered foreign policy!

[GMDino]

(03-13-2018, 09:06 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The guy just leads differently.  He wants chaos and competition. And feels it brings out the best in others.   It’s an older system of leadership but does work.   The problem is you run so hot all the time people burn out. It’s stressful.  The key is having a deep bench to hire from which he obviously does.

[Dill]

(03-13-2018, 09:06 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The guy just leads differently.  He wants chaos and competition. And feels it brings out the best in others.   It’s an older system of leadership but does work.   The problem is you run so hot all the time people burn out. It’s stressful.  The key is having a deep bench to hire from which he obviously does.

A "deep bench" is what Trump obviously doesn't have. Many see work in that White House as a career killer. And we see all these people publicly humiliated and fired on a whim. That is indeed "leading differently."

He certainly wants "chaos," but the competition part is not clear. He can't pick good people. The best do not flock to his WH, despite what he says. 

Any leader in his position requires experts around him who are not afraid to tell him what he doesn't know and when he is wrong.  But that is exactly what gets you canned, and that is why this "style" of leadership isn't working here. It is not really a style at all, just a frustrated guy acting on random impulses as he is blocked by a system he does not understand. Month by month, the people who speak truth to power are gone, leaving him surrounded by yes men.

While I've got your attention Lucy, I'd like to know what you think of the apparent Russian attack on our NATO ally. Should the U.S. president be rallying all of NATO for a response or sitting quietly back and firing anyone in his administration who condemns the Russian attack on our oldest and most solid ally?

What would "weak" Obama do in such a situation?

[SunsetBengal]

(03-13-2018, 09:25 PM)Dill Wrote: What would "weak" Obama do in such a situation?

Likely threaten Vladimir with some sanctions, as well offer some "thoughts and prayers" for the families of the spies. 

[StLucieBengal]

(03-13-2018, 09:25 PM)Dill Wrote:
A "deep bench" is what Trump obviously doesn't have. Many see work in that White House as a career killer. And we see all these people publicly humiliated and fired on a whim. That is indeed "leading differently."

He certainly wants "chaos," but the competition part is not clear. He can't pick good people. The best do not flock to his WH, despite what he says. 

Any leader in his position requires experts around him who are not afraid to tell him what he doesn't know and when he is wrong.  But that is exactly what gets you canned, and that is why this "style" of leadership isn't working here. It is not really a style at all, just a frustrated guy acting on random impulses as he is blocked by a system he does not understand. Month by month, the people who speak truth to power are gone, leaving him surrounded by yes men.

While I've got your attention Lucy, I'd like to know what you think of the apparent Russian attack on our NATO ally. Should the U.S. president be rallying all of NATO for a response or sitting quietly back and firing anyone in his administration who condemns the Russian attack on our oldest and most solid ally?

What would "weak" Obama do in such a situation?

Every president has a deep bench. It’s the most coveted jobs of all. They lead to great jobs after your done.

Trumps leadership style leads to everyone speaking up. It’s cut throat. The bad part is there just isn’t job security, which people like, but it could be argued that public jobs should shouldn’t ever be long term.

As for Russia, if the facts show they attacked the UK then yes we should stand by them as they are our oldest allies.

Obama would probably call it workplace violence if a Muslim was involved if a white person was involved he would go after the nra and try and take away citizens rights. He would also arrack local police across the country.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-13-2018, 09:37 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Likely threaten Vladimir with some sanctions, as well offer some "thoughts and prayers" for the families of the spies. 

Or tell putin’s #2 he will have more flexibility after the election

[GMDino]

(03-13-2018, 10:16 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Every president has a deep bench.  It’s the most coveted jobs of all.   They lead to great jobs after your done.  

Trumps leadership style leads to everyone speaking up.  It’s cut throat.  The bad part is there just isn’t job security, which people like, but it could be argued that public jobs should shouldn’t ever be long term.  

As for Russia, if the facts show they attacked the UK then yes we should stand by them as they are our oldest allies.

Obama would probably call it workplace violence if a Muslim was involved if a white person was involved he would go after the nra and try and take away citizens rights.   He would also arrack local police across the country.

[BmorePat87]

(03-13-2018, 09:06 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The guy just leads differently.  He wants chaos and competition. And feels it brings out the best in others.   It’s an older system of leadership but does work.   The problem is you run so hot all the time people burn out. It’s stressful.  The key is having a deep bench to hire from which he obviously does.

If you're going from your first choice, to your second choice, to your third choice, to your... well, I think most people get my point. Are you truly bringing the best out of people if you're now hoping your practice squad is going to get your to the Super Bowl?

[BmorePat87]

(03-13-2018, 10:16 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Obama would probably call it workplace violence if a Muslim was involved if a white person was involved he would go after the nra and try and take away citizens rights.   He would also arrack local police across the country.

For real. Remember when he got on TV after the San Bernardino attack and called it workplace violence?

Oh wait, he called it an act of terrorism. 


Ok, well he probably attacked or arracked police.

Shit, he actually praised law enforcement for stopping many other plots.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-13-2018, 11:31 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: For real. Remember when he got on TV after the San Bernardino attack and called it workplace violence?

Oh wait, he called it an act of terrorism. 


Ok, well he probably attacked or arracked police.

Shit, he actually praised law enforcement for stopping many other plots.

Lol Obama never let a chance to bash police pass by......

[StLucieBengal]

(03-13-2018, 11:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If you're going from your first choice, to your second choice, to your third choice, to your... well, I think most people get my point. Are you truly bringing the best out of people if you're now hoping your practice squad is going to get your to the Super Bowl?

Most have a pool of people and we don’t know their time frame either. For instance I believe tillerson would lost a lot of stocks in. Exxon had he stayed on for too long.

Nikki Haley was his first choice. She will be his SOS in his second term at some point.

[BmorePat87]

(03-14-2018, 12:34 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Lol Obama never let a chance to bash police pass by......

Except in the very case you were clearly alluding to...

[Dill]

(03-13-2018, 10:16 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Every president has a deep bench.  It’s the most coveted jobs of all.   They lead to great jobs after your done.  

Trumps leadership style leads to everyone speaking up.  It’s cut throat.  The bad part is there just isn’t job security, which people like, but it could be argued that public jobs should shouldn’t ever be long term.  

As for Russia, if the facts show they attacked the UK then yes we should stand by them as they are our oldest allies.

Obama would probably call it workplace violence if a Muslim was involved if a white person was involved he would go after the nra and try and take away citizens rights.   He would also arrack local police across the country.

Until NOW every president had a deep bench. This one does not. Further, even if he had his choice of "the best," his cabinet choices show that he does not select them.

And where did you hear that Trump's style leads to people "speaking up"?? He has set a record for firing important subordinates for speaking up or otherwise warning of illegal actions and unwise policy. If that gets you fired, why would you ever do that?  Others notice this. Stable people are not interested in White House jobs.

And why ever should a president's style be "cutthroat"? For a successful foreign policy (remember the topic of the thread?) to be successful, it has to be clear to allies and adversaries. At the moment ours is manifestly not. Trump refuses to respond to an attack on the US by Russia, but invites nuclear escalation with North Korea. Then suddenly announces he will meet with NK without a direct invitation, or any diplomatic connections in place. Then fires his secretary of state. And he repeatedly says he wants to trash the Iran Deal. How does that sound to China, France, Great Britain, Russia and Germany, who worked so hard to get the deal?

You say that we should stand by the UK against Russia. But what will Trump actually do? He has yet to even implement Congressional sanctions.

You are saying that in response to an attack on a NATO member, Obama would respond by attacking U.S. police?

[Dill]

(03-13-2018, 09:37 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Likely threaten Vladimir with some sanctions, as well offer some "thoughts and prayers" for the families of the spies. 

When Russia invaded Crimea in 2014, Obama offered thoughts and prayers to the Ukrainian people--then led the US and EU to orchestrate a set of international sanctions on Russia and imposed them. Putin is still squealing to get out from under them.

When he learned of Russian interference in the US election, Obama immediately expelled 35 diplomats and slapped individual sanctions on individuals and two of their intelligence services.  He did not wait a week to do this.

Based on Obama's past behavior, why would you suppose in the case of last week's attack on the UK he would only "threaten" sanctions?  What is Trump doing?

[Dill]

(03-14-2018, 12:36 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Most have a pool of people and we don’t know their time frame either.   For instance I believe tillerson would lost a lot of stocks in. Exxon had he stayed on for too long.  

Nikki Haley was his first choice.  She will be his SOS in his second term at some point.

Why didn't he pick his first choice?

[StLucieBengal]

(03-14-2018, 02:20 AM)Dill Wrote: Why didn't he pick his first choice?

She felt she wasn’t ready and wanted to be UN ambassador first. Since she was only a governor.

[Belsnickel]

Foreign policy isn't my policy realm. I like to learn about it and I have friends in State, but I can't speak on diplomatic issues like I can domestic policies. That being said, what concerns me with Trump's approach (as Lucie put it, chaos and competition) is that it approaches these issues with a zero sum attitude. A zero sum attitude is not helpful when looking at policy, whether it is foreign or domestic, except for very specific circumstances.

When I listen to those with experience in the realm of foreign policy talk about Trump, the consensus is that he just does not understand foreign relations or that he does but does not care because of his nationalistic attitudes. We are no longer viewed as the world's leader by our allies (based on latest Pew results of their yearly survey on this), and that is a direct result of the foreign policy enacted by this administration.

A strong Secretary of State could have helped offset Trump's lack of knowledge in the field, but that isn't what we had and it isn't what he has nominated to replace Tillerson. Pompeo will likely continue the trend of gutting the State Department in favor of more nationalistic policies.