The Serious Foreign Policy Thread--Bolton Cleans House

[Dill]

(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.

LOL sure you can. Links to Breitbart, Newsmax, WorldNetDaily, Daily Wire, and Fox.  Countless links.

What you can't do is explain why the nancy boy stood up to Russia after their cyber attack while Trump wilted.

[Dill]

Like Tillerson, McMaster is gone right after condemning Russia for the murders in the UK.

Fox News personality John Bolton in as the new National Security Advisor, whose role on the NSC has traditionally been to make sure the president is getting balanced intel.

 It just got seriouser.
.........................................................................................................................................................

Bolton pick underscores Trump's foreign policy confusion
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/22/bolton-trump-foreign-policy-confusion-482168

“Trump says he wants a team that aligns with his views. How does the neocon of neocons — of the most aggressive and ruthless persuasion — align with a man who condemned our international overextension during his campaign?” asked Loren DeJonge Schulman, who served as a senior aide to former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice.
.................................................................................................................................................................................

Bolton publicly considers first strike against North Korea as a rational option.

North Korea hawk Bolton's appointment as White House adviser fans worries in Asia
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/north-korea-hawk-boltons-appointment-as-white-house-adviser-fans-worries-in-asia/ar-BBKAxM2

"If Bolton take office and talks with North Korea go haywire and yield bad results, I don't know what we'll do then," said Kim Hack-yong, conservative lawmaker and head of the national defence committee of South Korea's parliament.

"It might be great if Kim Jong Un comes to talks with a free spirit but any turns in a negative direction could mean all our work over the years to engage North Korea could turn to dust."

Bolton, in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last month, concluded it was "perfectly legitimate for the United States to respond to the current 'necessity' posed by North Korea’s nuclear weapons by striking first".
................................................................................................................................................................................

He wants to tank the Iran deal, linking Iran to North Korea.

Beyond the Iran Nuclear Deal:US policy should be to end the Islamic Republic before its 40th anniversary.
https://www.aei.org/publication/beyond-the-iran-nuclear-deal/


And Pompeo as Secretary of state means one more hawk in the mix.  How long will Kelly Last?  

[StLucieBengal]

Ugh not a Bolton fan.

Ofc I didn’t care for McMaster either.

[Dill]

(03-23-2018, 01:01 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Ugh not a Bolton fan.  

Ofc I didn’t care for McMaster either.

Bolton was a neocon booster of the Iraq War, a UN rep who hated the UN.

What did you think of the Iraq War, which Bolton still defends?

[Dill]

On Bolton's Temperament, from 2005.

Horrifying, personal John Bolton story
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2005/4/15/106909/-

Mr. Bolton proceeded to chase me through the halls of a Russian hotel -- throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door and, generally, behaving like a madman. For nearly two weeks, while I awaited fresh direction from my company and from US AID, John Bolton hounded me in such an appalling way that I eventually retreated to my hotel room and stayed there. Mr. Bolton, of course, then routinely visited me there to pound on the door and shout threats.

When US AID asked me to return to Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan in advance of assuming leadership of a project in Kazakstan, I returned to my project to find that John Bolton had proceeded me by two days. Why? To meet with every other AID team leader as well as US foreign-service officials in Bishkek, claiming that I was under investigation for misuse of funds and likely was facing jail time. As US AID can confirm, nothing was further from the truth.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-15-2018, 03:09 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL sure you can. Links to Breitbart, Newsmax, WorldNetDaily, Daily Wire, and Fox.  Countless links.

What you can't do is explain why the nancy boy stood up to Russia after their cyber attack while Trump wilted.

I just saw this post. Nice to see your now just tossing websites on that you think I go to.

Stand up to Russia? When he asked for more time until after the elections. Or when he overthrew a democratically elected leader (using the eu to help facilitate) in the Ukraine then just watched when Russia took Crimea?

Sounds like he stirred it all up then just blamed Russia when it blew up in his face.

Please tell me you do not need me to post the phone call or the state department response.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-23-2018, 01:03 AM)Dill Wrote: Bolton was a neocon booster of the Iraq War, a UN rep who hated the UN.

What did you think of the Iraq War, which Bolton still defends?

We should have never been there. If I had it my way we would pull out of there. And I would seal off the entire region from coming to the US. With only a couple. Of exceptions ofc.

[Dill]

(03-23-2018, 01:22 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I just saw this post.  Nice to see your now just tossing websites on that you think I go to.    

Stand up to Russia?  When he asked for more time until after the elections.  Or when he overthrew a democratically elected leader (using the eu to help facilitate) in the Ukraine then just watched when Russia took Crimea?  

Sounds like he stirred it all up then just blamed Russia when it blew up in his face.  

Please tell me you do not need me to post the phone call or the state department response.

No idea what the last line refers to. If you post links from the aforementioned websites I am pretty sure you go to them.

Who told you Obama overthrew a democratically elected leader in the Ukraine? 

I agree that the US and the EU should not have been pushing NATO up to Russia's borders. That was a mistake.

But the issue at the moment is whether Obama stood up to Putin, which he certainly did on a number of occasions.  Organizing a punishing sanctions regime on Russia is not "just watching." 

Also, Obama had no trouble verbally and publicly calling Putin out, personally condemning him.  I will shut up about this if you can show me a Trump statement publicly condemning Putin about anything.

[BmorePat87]

Yea, we're ***** bombing North Korea. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump starts a war in hopes of joining every other war time President in getting reelected.

[Dill]

(03-23-2018, 09:12 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea, we're ***** bombing North Korea. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump starts a war in hopes of joining every other war time President in getting reelected.

We won't be talking about Stormy Daniels while American soldiers are dying in Korea.


I am curious as to how Russia and China look at a potential nuclear first strike on their borders.  Will they step back and say "not our buisness" or will they be forced challenge the US and back NK?

[CKwi88]

(03-23-2018, 09:18 AM)Dill Wrote: We won't be talking about Stormy Daniels while American soldiers are dying in Korea.


I am curious as to how Russia and China look at a potential nuclear first strike on their borders.  Will they step back and say "not our buisness" or will they be forced challenge the US and back NK?

I highly doubt that we would use a nuke against NK. I would like to think that even if Trump ordered it, subordinates would refuse. An unprovoked nuclear strike could very well be the beginning of the end of the world.

Either way, any "pre-emptive" strike against North Korea would be globally condemned. It's almost as if we're the only country that doesn't realize than NK is the kindergarten student eating glue in the corner screaming for attention.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-23-2018, 08:19 AM)Dill Wrote: No idea what the last line refers to. If you post links from the aforementioned websites I am pretty sure you go to them.

Who told you Obama overthrew a democratically elected leader in the Ukraine? 

I agree that the US and the EU should not have been pushing NATO up to Russia's borders. That was a mistake.

But the issue at the moment is whether Obama stood up to Putin, which he certainly did on a number of occasions.  Organizing a punishing sanctions regime on Russia is not "just watching." 

Also, Obama had no trouble verbally and publicly calling Putin out, personally condemning him.  I will shut up about this if you can show me a Trump statement publicly condemning Putin about anything.

I am referencing the phone call between the us ambassador to the Ukraine and Victoria Nuland.





Ofc their response.... but the reporters bring up a lot of pertinent questions about what the US is trying to do here.

[Dill]

(03-23-2018, 02:52 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I am referencing the phone call between the us ambassador to the Ukraine and Victoria Nuland.  

Ofc their response.... but the reporters bring up a lot of pertinent questions about what the US is trying to do here.

The U.S. was trying to manage a crisis there. Unless you are reporting for the Daily Wire, there is no Obama plotting to overthrow a duly elected autocract in the phone transcript.  Just US state department and UN officials working out a political solution to an existing crisis.

[Dill]

(03-23-2018, 10:21 AM)CKwi88 Wrote: I highly doubt that we would use a nuke against NK. I would like to think that even if Trump ordered it, subordinates would refuse. An unprovoked nuclear strike could very well be the beginning of the end of the world.

Either way, any "pre-emptive" strike against North Korea would be globally condemned. It's almost as if we're the only country that doesn't realize than NK is the kindergarten student eating glue in the corner screaming for attention.

Well you are hitting on my major concern her, CK.  Our leader is also screaming for attention.

I cannot say that I "highly doubt" we would use a nuke anymore. Kelly and Mattis are still somewhat of a firewall there, but how long will they last? And neither Trump nor Bolton give a fig for "global condemnation."

And as far as the pre-emptive strike goes--if I were China or Russia, I would prevent it any way possible. If the strike actually occurs, I think China and Russia would have to react in someway. The US could hardly ignore nuclear strike in Vancouver, Toronto, or Montreal.

Further, just the fact that an undisciplined US president now has an advisor who is all about first strikes in Iran AND North Korea must greatly unsettle everyone--allies and adversaries alike. South Koreans have to be worried that a nudge from Bolton could provoke a firey response from young Kim.

[ballsofsteel]

(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.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-23-2018, 03:29 PM)Dill Wrote: The U.S. was trying to manage a crisis there. Unless you are reporting for the Daily Wire, there is no Obama plotting to overthrow a duly elected autocract in the phone transcript.  Just US state department and UN officials working out a political solution to an existing crisis.

Don’t bury your head in the sand. Your better than that. Btw it’s not our job to manage another country’s leader or get the UN to come in and cement what we want to happen. The Ukraine shouldn’t be treated like this....

[Belsnickel]

Just read an interesting article, this morning: https://theconversation.com/fewer-diplomats-more-armed-force-defines-us-leadership-today-92890

Quote:A strong legacy of U.S. leadership and engagement in global politics has been reduced today to what I call kinetic diplomacy – diplomacy by armed force.

As of March 2018, the Trump administration has appointed only 70 of 188 U.S. ambassadors. At the same time, it has increased the deployment of special operations forces to 149 countries – up from 138 during the Obama administration in 2016. So while U.S. ambassadors are operating in one-third of the world’s capitals, special operations forces are active in three-fourths.

This is definitely an interesting shift in our foreign policy, and one that I fear will have long-lasting negative implications. We are already seen as a bully state by many other states around the world, and this exacerbates that. The appointment of Bolton to NSA will likely compound this given his positions.

Now, this isn't new. As the article goes on to discuss "kinetic diplomacy," it does note that the diplomatic shift started in earnest post-9/11. Obama was also more active militarily. Trump has just kicked it into high gear and seemingly made it highly improbable for diplomatic solutions to be reached were a crisis to erupt.

[Dill]

(03-26-2018, 09:11 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Just read an interesting article, this morning: https://theconversation.com/fewer-diplomats-more-armed-force-defines-us-leadership-today-92890


This is definitely an interesting shift in our foreign policy, and one that I fear will have long-lasting negative implications. We are already seen as a bully state by many other states around the world, and this exacerbates that. The appointment of Bolton to NSA will likely compound this given his positions.

Now, this isn't new. As the article goes on to discuss "kinetic diplomacy," it does note that the diplomatic shift started in earnest post-9/11. Obama was also more active militarily. Trump has just kicked it into high gear and seemingly made it highly improbable for diplomatic solutions to be reached were a crisis to erupt.

Yes, started after 9/11, but I don't see an even progression.  Obama is trying to replace the "kinetic" action with diplomacy. From this understanding, drone strikes are in part about that--reducing the US footprint in conflict ares.

Love the concept thought--"kinetic diplomacy."  The U.S. is like Athens after the death of Pericles, a big stupid hegemon alienating allies.

[Dill]

McMaster Unleashes on Russia in Final Speech

http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/04/04/mcmaster-unleashes-on-russia-in-final-speech-putin-baltic-states-hybrid-warfare-white-house-trump-national-security-advisor-failed-to-impose-costs-on-kremlin/

For too long, some nations have looked the other way in the face of these threats. Russia brazenly and implausibly denies its actions, and we have failed to impose sufficient costs,” McMaster said Tuesday night, speaking at an Atlantic Council dinner alongside leaders from the three Baltic nations in town to meet with President Donald Trump.

Mr. Putin may believe that he is winning in this new form of warfare,” McMaster said. “Perhaps he believes that our free nations are weak and will not respond to his provocations. He is wrong.”

His remarks impressed many in the audience of foreign diplomats, think tankers, and former U.S. officials, who have grown concerned about Trump’s reluctance to openly criticize Putin. McMaster received a standing ovation when he stepped off the podium.

“That was the strongest speech on Russia I’ve seen from anyone in this administration ever,” said one former senior U.S. official in attendance.

McMaster’s swan song stood in sharp contrast to his boss’s remarks earlier in the day. Trump, speaking alongside the presidents of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia at the White House on Tuesday, said he wasn’t kowtowing to Russia but wanted to have a good relationship with Putin.

“Nobody has been tougher on Russia, but getting along with Russia would be a good thing, not a bad thing. And just about everybody agrees to that except very stupid people,” Trump said.

When a reporter asked him whether Putin was a friend or an enemy, Trump said, “We’ll find out. I’ll let you know.”
...................................................................................................................................................................

McMaster's speech seemed a clear challenge to Trump.   The absence of leadership regarding the Russian threat is foregrounded by this speech since it is what the President should be saying, but won't/can't.

But oddly, McMaster also praises Trump's response to Putin's latest outrage, because Trump expelled some diplomats.  Did he feel he still had to bolster Trump's ego/authority?  If he sustains the White House bubble around Trump, in which Trump believes "no one has been tougher on Russia," is that a good thing?  Reporters seem to hear the tough talk on Russia; Trump may only be hearing that he has been tough, already done the right thing.

[Dill]

Another national security official departs Trump administration as John Bolton cleans house
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/12/john-bolton-pushes-out-deputy-national-security-advisor-rick-waddell.html
Waddell is the latest in a growing wave of departures from national security agencies as Bolton becomes a top aide to Trump.
On Wednesday, the White House confirmed that Nadia Schadlow, a strategy advisor who worked under McMaster, is resigning and will leave her position at the end of the month.
The day before, Trump administration officials said that homeland security advisor Tom Bossert would be stepping down. "The President is grateful for Tom's commitment to the safety and security of our great country," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement.
And on Sunday, a spokesman for the national security council, Michael Anton, announced that he will be leaving the White House.
.................................................................................................................................................

Bossert was recognized as extremely competent, a guy who could get things done.

I knew if I just published the above, some would say "So what, there is always changeover at the NSC," or "Obama changed personnel too," or "Of course Bolton would bring in his own people."  

So to provide context, I add the following links.

First, to Obama's Presidential Directive of Feb. 13, 2009.  https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/ppd/ppd-1.pdf
Typically, a president's first directive is to get the NSC up and running. Obama's lays out the four levels of leadership and responsibilities, with variations for Homeland Security Issues, Economic issues, and Science and technology issues at every level. The lowest level, the Interagency Policy Committees, working up the papers, viewpoints and options to be vetted at the next. And so on. During Obama's presidency some personnel did change--He started with James Jones as NSA, went to Tom Donilon, ended with Susan Rice.  But the structural stability and functioning remained surprisingly stable. When individuals left, there was notice and new people were "worked in" and "brought up to speed" rather than thrown in with a week or two (or less) to prepare. There were complaints about Obama's NSC suffered by every one since Ike--charges of unwieldiness or too much policy direction from lower staff.

Now an excerpt from one of the early assessments of Trump's NSC.

How to Read Trump’s National Security Council Reboot
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/how-to-read-trumps-national-security-council-reboot-214709
Another notable change is the addition of the Homeland Security Council to Trump’s order in language that treats it as equal to the NSC. The significance of this is not entirely clear. President George W. Bush created a separate HSC staff in 2001, but Obama merged the two staffs early in his presidency, and Trump’s order continues “a single NSC staff within the Executive Office of the President that serves both the NSC and HSC.” In form, the order makes national security adviser Flynn and homeland security adviser Tom Bossert equal in their management authority, though Flynn is likely to predominate in practice due to his broader jurisdiction.
Most important as a signal of current and future policy making is the naming of the controversial Steve Bannon, President Trump’s chief strategist, as a regular attendee at both the NSC and its Principals Committee. He is, by all reports, close to the president and an active force in the decisions and actions of Trump’s first week. Setting aside his past role as chairman of Breitbart News, the far-right website, Bannon’s official inclusion is troubling for another reason: He could, over time, challenge the role of national security adviser Flynn, if he is not doing so already. Past presidents, including Bush, were keen to avoid the appearance of political aides influencing national security,

The above passage alludes to both a structural unclarity (a flaw, actually) and the inclusion of the unqualified and extremely political Bannon. The structural unclarity, was, like the Muslim ban, a result of working up an organizational chart without input from experienced stakeholders.  The original NSC plan, unlike Obama's, is no longer to be found on the internet.  We are on NSC plan #4 now, and I have not been able to find it anywhere.

Barely three months later after the NSC is formed, comes the first big shake up.

With Bannon Out, Here’s Trump’s New National Security Council
http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2017/04/bannon-out-heres-trumps-new-national-security-council/136805/
With Steve Bannon out and some new faces added, the principals committee of the US National Security Council (NSC) suddenly looks a bit different than it did during president Donald Trump’s first month in office.
It’s still unclear what prompted the removal of Bannon, exactly. But the new structure offers reassurance to those concerned that Bannon represented too political a voice on the committee, and restores some of the Washington conventions that Trump previously neglected—like making room on the committee for the director of national intelligence.
Trump’s original NSC memorandum, issued Jan. 28, specified nine sitting members of its principals committee, including Bannon. Other officials would be invited to attend “where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed”—including the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.
In the new makeup, both the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the joint chiefs are on the principals committee, along with three other additions—the US secretary of energy, the US representative to the United Nations, and the director of the CIA.

This is before Kushner is cut out, and others with no security clearance.  

Anyway, let's come full circle to my first link above, which describes the "housecleaning" following Bolton.  

It is hard to understand how the NSC can function, with all that has gone on during the first year. Instability at the first two levels--the Council itself and the Principals Committee--has to mean confusion at the lower levels, where policy options are analyzed and prepared for decision. The shifts in upper level personnel mean stalled projects, unclear responsibilities, and no clear guidance at lower levels.

And remember Bolton is the adviser now. That means some shocks ahead, likely people resigning at lower levels.