The Serious Foreign Policy Thread--Bolton Cleans House

[GMDino]

(03-14-2018, 10:01 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: She felt she wasn’t ready and wanted to be UN ambassador first.  Since she was only a governor.

Yet she had more experience than Tillerson.  

But Tillerson wasn't a yes man so he goes.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-14-2018, 01:35 AM)Dill Wrote: 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?

There is a lot of rambling here.

Have you never had a job where coworkers were Pitted against each other to provide the most competition making the group? This is an old school style. Lou Holtz had a similar leadership style.

A successful foreign policy is whatever is good for the USA. We have a clear policy.

Where did refuse to respond to an attack from Russia? He did that the first week on the job.

Where did he invite nuclear escalation with NK?

Doubtful this meeting was set out of the blue By trump. South Korea was instrumental in setting it up. You know working with our partners and all.

Tillerson has been on short leash for a while . He was never meant to be in threat job long.

I have said the possible reasons to not pushing additional sanctions might be because he is working with them on NK. Who knows if Turin but it would explain.

Obama wouldn’t take the lead in anything. He would let the internal community take the lead. Which is a joke.

[Vas Deferens]

It is patently impossible to have a 'serious' discussion about a topic with someone who is patently disingenuous.

Good luck gents. This will be a great thread when antiadmin is gone again.

[Dill]

(03-14-2018, 10:01 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: She felt she wasn’t ready and wanted to be UN ambassador first.  Since she was only a governor.

Lucy, what is your source for the claim that Haley was his first choice and that she felt she wasn't ready?

[Dill]

(03-14-2018, 10:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

Your aforementioned consensus jives with the consensus of my knowledgeable friends, and also what I am reading of foreign policy experts.

Further, Trump has considered (John Bolton) or actually picked (Sebastian Gorka, Carter Page, George Papadopolous) fringe characters in the foreign policy scene to advise him--people no one else would consider for serious positions. He pushes away knowledgeable people and is drawn to crackpots.

I agree with your point about a knowledgeable secretary of state, but had he chosen one, they would have locked horns frequently. People who want to work in his cabinet, his white house, ultimately have to kow tow to his uninformed opinion, accept the implementation of policies that may have been suggested that morning on Fox News. This is very hard for people who see the long term effects of undoing policies which have been in place for decades and which have defined our relation to both allies and adversaries.

One of my reasons for starting this thread is to get people thinking about the consequences of White House chaos for foreign policy, to consider for a moment how all this looks from the "outside" so to speak. The chaos creates opportunities for bad actors. It creates risks for our allies--especially South Korea. 

I fear that one reason Trump was elected was that our foreign policy has by and large been successful--with the exception of W.--over the last 40 years, so people assume that peace and economic prosperity is just natural, not the work of knowledgeable people constantly maintaining our foreign relations. They assume Trump can't do much damage.  But he can.

[fredtoast]

(03-14-2018, 11:35 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There is a lot of rambling here.  

Have you never had a job where coworkers were Pitted against each other to provide the most competition making the group?  

Making the group what?

Every job I have had it has been made clear that we can accomplish more by working together instead of against one another.  In -ighting is one of the biggest waste of resources in any company.  A good company has to have one goal and one plan.  If you just let everyone fight it out among themselves they just beat up each other while the competition coasts to a win.

If you are just going to have a "survival of the fittest" you don't need a "leader" at all.  What would a leader do if every decision is based on who wins a fight?

[StLucieBengal]

(03-14-2018, 03:08 PM)Dill Wrote: Lucy, what is your source for the claim that Haley was his first choice and that she felt she wasn't ready?

Haley and Preibus

[StLucieBengal]

(03-14-2018, 04:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Making the group what?

Every job I have had it has been made clear that we can accomplish more by working together instead of against one another.  In -ighting is one of the biggest waste of resources in any company.  A good company has to have one goal and one plan.  If you just let everyone fight it out among themselves they just beat up each other while the competition coasts to a win.

If you are just going to have a "survival of the fittest" you don't need a "leader" at all.  What would a leader do if every decision is based on who wins a fight?

I agree with you on working together. Let me say that first.

I have been in jobs where it’s been competitive and contentious within the office and it was specifically done that way with the thought it would push those to exceed expectations and then the boss could see who couldn’t keep up.

[Dill]

(03-14-2018, 11:35 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I have said the possible reasons to not pushing additional sanctions might be because he is working with them on NK.   Who knows if Turin but it would explain.  

Obama wouldn’t take the lead in anything.  He would let the internal community take the lead.   Which is a joke.

Just a quick note here: Obama got the Russians on board with the Iran deal--while imposing crippling sanctions on them for the invasion of Crimea.

That was an amazing diplomatic accomplishment. And everyone agrees Obama did that. Not "the international community," which he led in imposing sanctions on Russia.

And knowing when to let the international community lead is very important to diplomacy. Obama did that too.

China plays a much more important role NK sanctions, yet Trump does not hesitate to falsely accuse them of currency manipulation and otherwise disparage them publicly. 

Think of how harshly Trump speaks of Hillary and the press and illegal immigrants, yet
Trump has had nothing but positive things to say about Putin the person and Russia in general--a person who rules as virtual dictator of a country which is our adversary, which attacked us.  Worse, he refuses to impose Congressional sanctions on Russia.
Trump’s Attitude Toward Russia Sanctions Makes a Mockery of the United States
http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/01/trumps-attitude-toward-russia-sanctions-makes-a-mockery-of-the-united-states/

So there is nothing "clear" about US foreign policy. Trump's foreign policy moves, such as they are, are more easily explained by fear of Putin, ignorance of foreign policy, and nationalist showmanship than by imputing some secret plan to him. 

[Dill]

(03-14-2018, 04:55 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Haley and Preibus

I find where Haley wisely said she did not have the required foreign policy knowledge. That means her judgment in this matter was better than Trump's.

But I cannot find any source which says she was first choice. If she was, that was bad. He was also considering Gulliani. Also bad judgment.

[Dill]

(03-14-2018, 10:43 AM)GMDino Wrote:
Yet she had more experience than Tillerson.  

But Tillerson wasn't a yes man so he goes.

She had more experience in government.

But I am not sure she had more foreign policy experience. Tillerson was always negotiating with governments--Russia, Niger, Iraq--not to mention US foreign policy, just to manage Exxon interests and assets abroad.

He was not a diplomat though, did not know how to build relationships with other departments in the exec or with the people below him.  He did see the problems/complications/consequences of Trump excess though.  He was reportedly on an apology tour of "s***hole countries" when fired--countries and people whose help we may need someday.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-14-2018, 05:05 PM)Dill Wrote: Just a quick note here: Obama got the Russians on board with the Iran deal--while imposing crippling sanctions on them for the invasion of Crimea.

That was an amazing diplomatic accomplishment. And everyone agrees Obama did that. Not "the international community," which he led in imposing sanctions on Russia.

And knowing when to let the international community lead is very important to diplomacy. Obama did that too.

China plays a much more important role NK sanctions, yet Trump does not hesitate to falsely accuse them of currency manipulation and otherwise disparage them publicly. 

Think of how harshly Trump speaks of Hillary and the press and illegal immigrants, yet
Trump has had nothing but positive things to say about Putin the person and Russia in general--a person who rules as virtual dictator of a country which is our adversary, which attacked us.  Worse, he refuses to impose Congressional sanctions on Russia.
Trump’s Attitude Toward Russia Sanctions Makes a Mockery of the United States
http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/01/trumps-attitude-toward-russia-sanctions-makes-a-mockery-of-the-united-states/

So there is nothing "clear" about US foreign policy. Trump's foreign policy moves, such as they are, are more easily explained by fear of Putin, ignorance of foreign policy, and nationalist showmanship than by imputing some secret plan to him. 

Lol the Iran deal.

I will give him credit for trying something out of the box. Had he not went around and apologized for us plus basically looked and acted weak in almost every aspect of his foreign policy then maybe he would have stood a chance.

[GMDino]

(03-14-2018, 05:31 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Lol the Iran deal.  

I will give him credit for trying something out of the box.   Had he not went around and apologized for us plus basically looked and acted weak in almost every aspect of his foreign policy then maybe he would have stood a chance.

Did I accidentally tune in to FOX  Friends?

[Dill]

(03-14-2018, 05:31 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Lol the Iran deal.  

I will give him credit for trying something out of the box.   Had he not went around and apologized for us plus basically looked and acted weak in almost every aspect of his foreign policy then maybe he would have stood a chance.

This is pretty Foxy, Lucy.

The "apology tour" is only a fact in the right wing echo chamber, where he was constantly called "weak" whenever he refused to take ill-considered actions.  He rebuilt the US national image after Dubya, whose foreign policy wreckage we still live with and pay for.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-14-2018, 05:42 PM)Dill Wrote: This is pretty Foxy, Lucy.

The "apology tour" is only a fact in the right wing echo chamber, where he was constantly called "weak" whenever he refused to take ill-considered actions.  He rebuilt the US national image after Dubya, whose foreign policy wreckage we still live with and pay for.

I never said bush had good foreign policy either. He at least projected strength. Obama comes off as steve urkel.

[hollodero]

(03-14-2018, 07:24 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I never said bush had good foreign policy either.   He at least projected strength.   Obama comes off as steve urkel.

No he does not. Don't project your view of him on the world.

@topic I know that could become an annoying pet subject of mine, but isn't it strange that Russia used a nerve agent that could clearly and unambiguously be traced back to them? Why is there no attempt at secrecy. I think that's a question worth considering.

As for the US, we know by now where Trump's allegiances lie and that it's not with the rest of the so-called "free world".

[StLucieBengal]

(03-14-2018, 10:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: No he does not. Don't project your view of him on the world.

@topic I know that could become an annoying pet subject of mine, but isn't it strange that Russia used a nerve agent that could clearly and unambiguously be traced back to them? Why is there no attempt at secrecy. I think that's a question worth considering.

As for the US, we know by now where Trump's allegiances lie and that it's not with the rest of the so-called "free world".

Obama is without a doubt a weak little Nancy boy. I could post countless Links to this stuff.

[GMDino]

The Serious Foreign Policy Thread

(03-14-2018, 05:31 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Lol the Iran deal.  

I will give him credit for trying something out of the box.   Had he not went around and apologized for us plus basically looked and acted weak in almost every aspect of his foreign policy then maybe he would have stood a chance.

(03-14-2018, 07:24 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I never said bush had good foreign policy either.   He at least projected strength.   Obama comes off as steve urkel.

(03-14-2018, 10:43 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Obama is without a doubt a weak little Nancy boy.  I could post countless Links to this stuff.

[Dill]

(03-14-2018, 10:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: No he does not. Don't project your view of him on the world.

@topic I know that could become an annoying pet subject of mine, but isn't it strange that Russia used a nerve agent that could clearly and unambiguously be traced back to them? Why is there no attempt at secrecy. I think that's a question worth considering.

As for the US, we know by now where Trump's allegiances lie and that it's not with the rest of the so-called "free world".

The last is the question troubling the intel services of every NATO country right now, not to mention China and the Ukraine.

Let me toss out two hypotheses, neither of which I find especially convincing.

1. There is a crack in the Russian monolith. Someone in the state allowed the nerve agent to be deployed to weaken Putin. The attacks are a kind of false flag operation. (Though, if this were the case, I would expect Putin to exhibit more curiosity and work harder with the Brits to resolve this.)

2. Putin ordered the recent attacks in the UK. They are meant to shore up control within Russia (death to traitors wherever), and/or to intimidate and bring disarray to NATO and the EU. Sanctions may be pushing Putin to this risk. Normally, one would expect this to unite the West in a swift response--diplomatic expulsions, heavier sanctions, military red lines, a well-defined next level of escalation for all NATO members.  But it has to be clear to the intel services of all advanced nations that US foreign policy is aimless, subject to the president's uninformed and autocratic whims.  This to some degree paralyzes NATO. Individual European states must step into the vacuum of US leadership, since a coordinated, determined US-led response is unlikely. And that will look messy. The worst-case scenario is that Trump really is a Russian asset, willing or unwilling. It has looked that way until now. Even if he is not, nothing we have seen in the last three years suggests he could successfully lead an effective diplomatic-military counterattack, should he want to.

I am not wholly satisfied with 2, because of the apparent risk it poses to Putin of still worse sanctions and far worse economic and political isolation. It has me wondering if Putin's judgment is that bad. Has he misjudged our weakness, or does he understand better than we do what happens when the hegemon abdicates leadership or is incapable of it?

Unlike the invasion of Georgia and the occupation of Crimea, the UK attacks seem unprovoked. They don't appear clearly in the Russian national interest. Has the pressure of sanctions been enough to rock the Russian state in ways apparent to Putin but not to us yet? Is this more about risk to Putin's control and legacy than the good of the nation (as Russians would understand it?) 


PS LOL I think we can assume Manafort will not flip now.

[Dill]

(03-14-2018, 10:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: @topic I know that could become an annoying pet subject of mine, but isn't it strange that Russia used a nerve agent that could clearly and unambiguously be traced back to them? Why is there no attempt at secrecy. I think that's a question worth considering.

Chatham House as a useful take on the lack of secrecy:

The Skripal Attack Is a Test for the UK  https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/skripal-attack-test-uk#

In recent years, successive British governments have repeatedly communicated weakness to Russia without any intention of doing so.

First, even before the suspicious ‘suicide’ of dissident oligarch Boris Berezovsky in 2013, the UK authorities had been singularly lacklustre in prosecuting a macabre string of suspect deaths of Russian exiles on British soil. Until 2014, the government resisted a public inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, signalling that it was disinclined to name and shame Russia for fear of harming attempts to rebuild ties.

Second, Russia viewed the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) of 2010 as an abdication of Britain’s great power role. The winding down of a fair portion of the UK’s maritime reconnaissance and warfare capability in northern waters was regarded with incredulity. The SDSR’s 2015 successor has repaired much of the damage to UK defence capacities, but this scarcely has registered in Moscow.

Third, David Cameron’s government chose to absent itself from the Russia–Ukraine ‘Minsk process’, leaving the running to Paris and Berlin. Given the UK’s prominent role in securing the rights and assurances that underpinned Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity (including its signature on the 1994 Budapest Memorandum), London effectively communicated to Moscow that Ukraine had become a lesser priority and that Britain had better things to do. Although the UK’s vigorous defence advisory effort has earned plaudits in Kyiv, Russia no longer considers Britain to be a serious player in Ukraine.

Fourth, there is Brexit, which many of its supporters believe will strengthen Britain’s global influence. Whatever the merits of that claim, the Russians view Brexit as a case of the UK cutting off its nose to spite its face. From the earliest days of the Cold War, the USSR and its Russian successor viewed Britain as Washington’s number one proxy in Europe. From Moscow’s perspective, the UK’s position at the EU top table enhanced US and British influence simultaneously. That advantage has been thrown away.

Today’s Russian leadership, political and military, believes it is at war with the West. It is not a war dominated by artillery and tanks, but by finance and social media, with huge opportunities for covert action from disinformation to assassination. As Russia’s Ministry of Defence stated in 2011, to prevail in these new conditions requires ‘destabilizing the society and state, and forcing the state to make decisions in the interests of the opposing party. That is the test the UK faces.

The last bolded point seems spot on.