Quantcast

Blogs

The Closing of the Conservative Mind

Donald Trump won last year’s Republican civil war and most of the losers surrendered.

A buffoonish and narcisistic reality TV star who spent his entire life as a boorish Democrat and who had nothing but contempt for the Republican Party and traditional American conservatism has managed, like a conquering warlord, to rally the vanquished around him.

There are exceptions, however, and Claire Berlinski is one of them. She and I spent the last decade covering foreign affairs in the Middle East and Europe and are alarmed by the new president’s contempt for the American-made trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific security architecture and at how whimsically American conservatives are willing to reverse their own party’s longstanding positions on everything from Vladimir Putin to NATO.

She and I spoke last week.

MJT: I want to start with a quote from retired general and former CIA director David Petraeus.

"Americans should not take the current international order for granted. It did not will itself into existence. We created it. Likewise, it is not naturally self-sustaining. We have sustained it. If we stop doing so, it will fray and, eventually, collapse.”

That is an excellent rebuttal to the Obama administration’s limp foreign policy of managed American decline overseas, and we heard a version of Petraeus’ critique from conservatives for eight years during the previous president’s term. But Petraeus said that two weeks ago while chastising the Trump administration. Donald Trump doing worse than doubling-down on Obamaism rather than reversing it as John McCain or Mitt Romney would have done. He seems to be willing to set the entire American-made international order on fire, as if everything from 1945 onward is suddenly on the table, not just NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership but even Japan’s demilitarization and NATO. He is consistently friendlier to Vladimir Putin’s Russia than he is to Europe. The Republican Party would have a stress-induced heart attack if a Democratic president were doing these things, wouldn’t it?

Claire Berlinski: Yeah, on Twitter David Frum wrote, "It’s as if a hostile foreign power has seized the US government and is by remote control steering it toward the maximum possible catastrophe.” Which it really is. I man, what more would you do?

Did you see that CNN piece about what happened at a Mar-a-Lago dinner party after they got news of the North Korean missile launch? “Trump and [Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo] Abe’s evening meal quickly morphed into a strategy session, the decision-making on full view to fellow diners, who described it in detail to CNN.”

You’re there, I’m not—I can’t tell if people are slowly beginning to realize just what an insane catastrophe we’ve got ourselves into, as in, we could all die from this kind of incompetence and from his species of mental illness—or are the people who voted for him still mostly stuck in cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias, minimizing reports like that as, yeah, overwrought, pearl-clutchers' Lügenpresse

I’m scared. Trouble sleeping, scared. I just don’t sense (from here) the urgency that ought to be there around the right issues. Yes, people are marching about abortion rights and racism, but this is so much bigger than abortion rights or building a wall or whatever at this point. This is about basic competence to do the job of the commander-in-chief, to keep communication secure, to read and understand a cable, to make judgments about the last vestiges of the NPT. I frankly don’t know if the guy can even read. And I don’t think he has a clue about what Petraeus said. If we say, “To hell with it,” it will go to hell, and faster than anyone imagines possible.

MJT: You’re right, there isn’t enough urgency about protecting the international order. The only people who seem to care are disaffected Never Trump conservatives and national security liberals from the centrist wing of the Democratic Party. The left, for the most part, is still stuck on identity politics and banging on about how mean and offensive Trump is. Trump is mean and offensive, so that’s fair enough as far as it goes, but if the international order falls apart while they’re making fun of him on Saturday Night Live and Twitter, so what?

The right, meanwhile, is banging on about America First, apparently oblivious to the fact that the last time we had an America First movement in the United States, Adolf Hitler became ruler of Europe. There is no Hitler on the horizon—ISIS is just as vicious but far too weak, and Vladimir Putin doesn’t even qualify as a bat boy in the league Hitler played in—but still. I can’t quite tell if American conservatives are going along with this for tribal partisan reasons or if the vast majority of my fellow citizens, left and right, don’t really care if the world burns as long as ISIS leaves us alone and we can fix health care.

Everyone seems to have forgotten that the American-built international order exists because it serves our national interests. How on earth did we get to the point where left and right alike are blowing it off? Because the Iraq War didn’t work out how we hoped? There has to be more going on than just that. Newt Gingrich suggested last year that NATO might not defend Estonia if Russia invaded, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Middle East.

Claire Berlinski: Two thoughts about that “America First” slogan. The first is that I cannot believe, or maybe I can but I just don’t want to, that people are using this slogan and thinking it’s fine. I’ve spent all week writing a response, probably never to be published, to Newt Gingrich’s column in the Washington Post, the one where he wrote that Trump’s model is Margaret Thatcher. (And he appeals to my book to make his case, which is why I’ve spent a week having a futile mental argument with him.) I was looking through the Thatcher archives to see if she’d ever referred to that slogan. I didn't find a specific reference to it, but there are thousands of documents that make it absolutely crystal clear what she would have said, if asked. This is from 1997, well after the end of the Cold War:

We dare not forget that the freedom of this cultured, enterprising people [she was in Prague] was snuffed out by each of the two monstrous, totalitarian systems of our century—intimidated, dismembered, and absorbed by Nazi Germany; subverted, betrayed, and enslaved by Communist Russia; and each time with the West standing impotently aside. These are blots on the history of the civilized world…

How quickly lessons are forgotten and deductions from events distorted! Two world wars have flowed from American disengagement from Europe. [my emphasis] By contrast, the cold war was won because America defended Western Europe’s security as its own...

I keep thinking that something really strange has happened to American collective national memory—whole things that should be there, basic memories of things we all lived through, or things our parents or our grandparents lived through, have [snap!] just gone missing. Like a person who has a stroke and loses the fifth grade. I’ve actually been spending a lot of time puzzling over this, as I guess you are, trying to figure out if this happens to every generation—does everyone sooner or later see this happening if they live long enough? Or is this kind of collective amnesia really specific to this political moment, and if so, why? Is it something to do with the Internet? The long-term effects of television? Could there be a cause that no one’s even imagined yet?*

Anyway, Margaret Thatcher is nothing like Trump, and Newt should know this perfectly well because they were contemporaries. And she would have flipped her wig if an American president had used the slogan “America First” in his inaugural address. Repeatedly. I mean, for God’s sake! You'd have to be entirely unfamiliar with the interwar period and the origins of the Second World War to be unaware where it comes from and what it means. To the point of having no real sense at all of how the world you live in came into being—you’d be like a goldfish circling ‘round and ‘round the tank, thinking, “The tank is eternal, the tank is all there is, the tank is all there has ever been, the tank is all there ever will be.” It’s so goddamned weird: The President of the United States of America and some vast number of American citizens have never read an article in some in-flight magazine about Charles Lindbergh and the America First Committee opposing the war against Nazi Germany, or spoken to a Second World War vet, or seen a documentary. The place in their minds where that stuff usually goes, probably along with the whole saga of the Spirit of St. Louis and the baby kidnapping—all of that is just blank. Nothing there. 

I suppose one thing that’s made it possible for someone to use the slogan “America First” is that the generation that lived through the Second World War is dying off. But Trump isn’t that young—he’d have grown up surrounded by veterans of the war; he’d know about all of this just from osmosis, right? I just came across a speech Thatcher gave in 1999 where she said, “There are very few today who doubt the prophetic importance of Churchill’s speeches attacking the appeasement of Nazism in the thirties.” How the hell did we not only manage to find one of those very few but elect him president! 

And that’s the most charitable interpretation. The charitable interpretation is that Trump is entirely unfamiliar with the cultural and political history of the United States, with Churchill’s efforts to convince America to enter the war, with Lindbergh and the America First Committee. He really doesn’t know any of it. But how could a mind so spotlessly virginal be able to understand, no less wisely discharge, the awesome responsibilities of the office he now holds? 

Then there's the less charitable interpretation. How could he not have known by the day he was inaugurated? The media went nuts, the ADL “begged him to reconsider.” So maybe he’s using it consciously. I resist this thought because the idea of an American president who consciously models himself on a Nazi sympathizer like Charles Lindbergh is too weird and frightening to confront, so I retreat to the idea that I'm reading too much into things. But then, that inaugural speech, Jesus. It’s just impossible to avoid hearing all those Nazi associations. One heart, one home, and one glorious destiny…total allegiance…The alternative to believing all of that resonance was intentional is believing the inaugural address of the 45th President of the United States was written with no thought, care or craft. Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth, right? And whichever one it is, it’s unthinkable.

*Maybe one day researchers will pinpoint the moment in 2013 when Flight Attendant X returned from Caracas, bringing with her the highly infectious T. idiocracii virus she’d contracted from a lemur in a petting zoo …

MJT: Like you, Claire, I would like to be charitable. I have always believed that one should not ascribe to malice what can just as easily be explained by incompetence. I repeatedly used that maxim to defend the Obama administration in online discussions, and I will do the same for the Trump administration. It seems like a small thing, but it’s huge actually. Having two incompetent presidents in a row is a very different thing from having two malicious and treasonous presidents in a row. America can survive one of those scenarios, but not the other.

And I think it’s safe to say at this point that Donald Trump is staggeringly incompetent intellectually. He does not read. He learns everything he thinks he knows from television. Where did you learn about Charles Lindbergh and the America First Committee? Probably not from television. I certainly didn’t. I am not a historian, but I have shelves and shelves of history books in my office. Meanwhile, the president of the United States is so incurious intellectually that he isn’t even interested in his intelligence briefings.

I got into an argument online recently with a man who calls himself a historian who says he hadn’t heard of the America First Committee until this year. I’m pretty sure he was lying, but either way something terrible indeed has happened to America’s historical memory. The best explanation I can think of is that those who lived through that period are no longer with us and not enough people read anything that isn’t on Facebook.

I don’t mean to come across like an intellectual snob. To paraphrase our City Journal colleague Anthony Daniels, a society that consisted of nothing but scholars would soon starve to death, and it wouldn’t be very interesting while it lasted. But we’re talking about the president of the United States here. I expect more from him than I expect from the man who picks up the garbage on my sidewalk each Monday.

What alarms me even more, though, to be honest, is the vast number of people who voted for him (Because Hillary) and feel some tribal partisan need to defend and Trumpsplain every half-baked thing he says. What is going to happen to the conservative half of America if they convince themselves that every conspiracy theory and "alternative fact" that comes out of his mouth is actually true? I've seen a lot of that in the Arab world and it doesn’t end well.

Claire Berlinski: Yes, this is the second-most-alarming part of the whole thing. (The first-most alarming part being the unprecedented number of massive international crises involving nuked up, stressed-out, barely-above-failed states actors, all about to come to a head even as POTUS calmly dines al fresco— “munching on crisp wedges of iceberg lettuce and blue cheese dressing”—at an unsecure Czar-a-Lago dining table, classified documents strewn hither and yon and illuminated by no-doubt compromised cell phones beaming back to the Kremlin every detail of the interchange.) What are London bookies giving the odds on a nuclear weapons exchange before the end of the administration?

And yes, the second-most-alarming thing is really fucking alarming, too. I know especially well from Ricochet that they are in their own, internally consistent cognitive world and can’t be reasoned out of it. We desperately need a compromise figure—one of true greatness—around whom the country can rally, but I can’t see one. Ben Sasse is too much of a wimp. Because this is getting too dangerous: They don’t think they’re at war with radical Islam, China, or Russia: They thing they’re at war with people like you and me. Heretics.

MJT: Welcome to my world. The left declared me a heretic fifteen years ago. It’s survivable. You will lose some friends but you will also make new ones. Some of your new friends may be temporary while others will be permanent.

At least the left is not hunting heretics at the moment, but I sense something terrible is about to happen to the Democratic Party as well. A cranky socialist from Vermont who isn’t even a Democrat almost pulled off a hostile takeover of that party. Bernie Sanders hasn’t learned a single new thing about economics or politics since the 1930s. He and most of his fans are just as ignorant about foreign policy as Donald Trump. Whatever is wrong with America and the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party, he can’t possibly be the right answer.

Both the left and the right have become much more aggressive in the last year, and they are both becoming less liberal in the classical sense of that word. I fear that the United States is gearing up for a political Clash of the Titans, with two enormous politically unhinged factions battling it out against each other at the ballot box, in Congress and in the streets. It makes me tempted to relocate myself to the countryside.

Something huge is sweeping over America and Donald Trump is just a symptom. If he has a stress-induced heart attack tomorrow and is replaced by Mike Pence I’ll breathe a sigh of relief, but we’re at the very beginning of a new era now, and removing Donald Trump from the White House would not put an end to it. Whatever this is, it seems to be happening in Europe too, and since you live in Paris, I have to ask: how are things looking on the Continent? There is no way that Brexit is the last act of the right-wing populist movements in Europe.

Claire Berlinski: Have you ever read the memorandum that Undersecretary of State Will Clayton sent back to Dean Acheson in 1947 about Europe, arguing for the Marshall Plan? “Without further prompt and substantial aid from the United States,” he wrote,

economic, social, and political disintegration will overwhelm Europe. Aside from the awful implications which this would have for the future peace and security of the world, the immediate effects on our domestic economy would be disastrous: markets for our surplus production gone, unemployment, depression, a heavily unbalanced budget on the background of a mountainous war debt. ·.. It will be necessary for the President and Secretary of State to make a strong spiritual appeal to the American people to sacrifice a little themselves, to draw in their own belts just a little in order to save Europe from starvation and chaos (not from the Russians [emphasis original]) and, at the same time, to preserve, for ourselves and our children the glorious heritage of a free America. 

“The United States,” he concluded, “must run this show.”

So that’s been the policy, since 1947—We can’t be totally straight with Americans about the nature of our security interests in Europe, but we have them. And that’s been true since and remains true now. It’s been taken as axiomatic by US defense planners that, as they put it in the 1995 National Security Strategy, “The United States has vital interests in a Europe that is democratic, undivided, stable and prosperous, open to trade and investment opportunities, and supportive of political, economic, and military cooperation with the United States in Europe and other important parts of the world.” But we never did get around to updating the messaging for Americans: We sold this as, “Let’s make sure the poor kids of Europe don’t starve,” and now, given that they’re visibly not starving, Americans don’t get why it's still important for us to run this show. Our leaders never bothered to explain to them that it was always a little more complicated (but no less important) than that. 

And lately, unsurprisingly, we’ve had a lot of Americans wondering why we do this. Perhaps we don’t have a vital interest in any of this? Would we truly notice the difference if Europe were autocratic, divided, unstable, poor, closed to trade and investment, and unsupportive of cooperation with the United States? Or in an alliance with China

(Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s intellectually healthy to ask these questions: Every so often, even our most fundamental axioms should be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. But it is a kind of suicidal ideation, geopolitically speaking, to be asking this question in the White House, right now, precisely as we run the real risk of finding out.) 

So here we are, with Russia taking big bites out of Europe. Just days before Donald Trump became the ultimate guarantor of the West’s security, just days before he enters the White House, the President-elect once again expressed, unprompted, his diffidence or disdain toward NATO and the European Union. He pretty much said there’s no longer a purpose to the West’s security architecture. It’s hard to imagine how his comments would have been different had they been written by the Kremlin (and now of course many of us are wondering if they were, literally). But this is even more bizarre because James Mattis, his own nominee for Secretary of Defense recently warned that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea have created “the most dangerous situation in a crisis-strewn region. And there is the potential I believe that Putin has unleashed forces that he will be personally unable to control.” So God knows what our policy is—I suppose it will depend who wins the bureaucratic shadow war. I wouldn’t bet against Mattis, but that’s another question.

(Tangentially, it’s not ridiculous to describe the EU, as Trump did, as a “vehicle” for German control. What Trump meant was unclear, but it’s true that the point of the EU, even if it is diplomatically unspeakable, is that it’s a vehicle for controlling Germany—which is and will always be an unstoppably dynamic continental power—and peacefully harnessing its energy. The pacification of Germany and its transformation into the continent’s peaceful economic engine are among the greatest achievements in American history, perhaps the greatest. So while I don’t think that’s what Trump meant, he inadvertently said something insightful.)     

So where Europe is going will depend a lot on where the US is going. Angela Merkel’s saying the right thing when she says “Europe’s future is in our hands”—I mean, what else can she say—but the US has always played a role no European power can play, because Europe (especially with Britain out) has no stable, hegemonic power center except Germany, and there are just too many bad memories for Germany to play that role. That’s why Europe has been so hapless at confronting all the things it obviously needs to confront. It can’t agree on a solid plan for the refugee crisis, a single and coherent foreign policy, a response to the Euro crisis, or (as we will soon see) a negotiating strategy with Britain. No one’s really in charge. It was designed with the assumption that the US would, in effect, be in charge. So the EU doesn’t have the authority to fix the problems that are causing the crisis of legitimacy for the EU. 

But the historically illiterate ideologues in the US who assume, because Nigel Farage told them so, that if the EU collapses, you’ll suddenly get a blooming garden of happy, sovereign, prosperous, and independent nation-states, all trading and cooperating together with ease? They’re out of their minds. Everything in European history tells us what would happen: violent competition for mastery and imperial expansion, with the smaller states swallowed up by the larger ones. I mean, do these people even realize that France was never a nation? It went right from being an empire to being part of the EU. 

Anyway, in the last decade or so there’s been a cottage industry in writing books about the mounting risks to Europe and the transatlantic alliance. I wrote one ten years ago; it was widely seen as alarmist. It isn’t seen that way any more, although the odd thing is that I think it should be seen that way, it was alarmist. I missed a lot, and failed to see a lot of strengths that are also here. As you know I just reviewed Jamie Kirchick's first book, The End of Europe, the latest entry in the specter-haunting-Europe genre, and in some chapters, it's excellent, especially when he sticks to his former RFE/RL beat and discusses the way Russia exploits ethnic tensions along Europe’s eastern periphery. Yes, Europe has a big problem assimilating immigrants; yes, we’re seeing the rise of authoritarian populist parties everywhere; yes, the whole thing’s a financial house of cards just waiting for the Italian banks to collapse; yes, they have no idea how to pay for their social welfare states, especially because Europeans don’t have babies. All of that is true. As is the usual list of problems people talk about when they talk about Europe: anti-Semitism, nationalism, high debt levels. Doomed by its own demography to financial shocks and economic sluggishness. The aging population undermines productivity and shifts consumption toward services, such as health care, and away from goods and investment. The shortage of younger workers reduces tax revenues, so immigration to bolster the workforce is the only solution, and tension about immigration inevitable. The number of European states with autocratic elements is on the rise and no one knows what to do about this. And of course, almost every day you read of another boat full of refugees capsizing in the Mediterranean. No one knows what to do about that either. 

The EU’s institutions just weren’t built to handle problems like this. The EU sets monetary policy for Eurozone states, but state capitals retain fiscal and security responsibilities, so the poorer members wind up saddled with debt and sluggish growth—and no state ultimately responsible in a buck-stops-here way for challenges like securing European borders. The banks are still unevenly capitalized and regulated. There is still no common plan to cope with migration within and into Europe.

And Donald Trump is dead wrong about Brexit. It’s a catastrophe, one that will encourage regional and separatist movements throughout Europe. There are dozens of Yugoslavias-in-prospect. I mean, again, this is an important point — these people who want to “go back” to a time when all of these countries were independent know no European history at all. These were collections of duchies and principalities and empires. There was no “France,” there was no “Italy,” there was no “Germany,” and as soon as there were, they started slaughtering each other. For years, the task of figuring out how to get Britain out of Europe in the least damaging way will preoccupy Britain and the Continent, undermining the region’s international clout and weakening transatlantic cooperation, to the extent that the US under Trump isn’t inclined to cooperate about anything. And the far-right populist parties thrive on this kind of chaos. They’re financed by the Kremlin, and sympathetic to it, or willing to accommodate it, and they've making steady electoral gains. And like our populists, they won’t be able to make anything better if they take power. They’ll just create chaos. 

There’s a risk, though, that I hadn’t appreciated in pointing out all of these problems. The risk is of evoking contempt in American readers, rather than concern; fatalism in the place of leadership. The optimism about Europe in 2000 was excessive, but the pessimism about Europe now is also, probably, excessive. The Franco-German border is completely demilitarized. Americans have become totally hysterical about Muslim migration into Europe, but the fear is completely out of proportion. There are seven hundred million Europeans here—a million Muslims won’t change things all that profoundly. The collapse of the European Union does not, inherently, need to be a humanitarian catastrophe—it depends how it’s managed. And if European demography suggests reasons for pessimism about Europe’s future, there is also a bright side: Old people don’t go to war.

I have a lot more to say about this, but short answer: I’m more worried about the US. If the US behaves like a rational superpower, all of this can be managed. But if we keep it up with this Sick-Man-of-the-Globe act, Europe will wash down the tubes with us, I fear. 

China Threatens to Deny Passage Rights through Peripheral Seas

On Tuesday, Chinese state media reported that the Legislative Affairs Office of the State Council is considering amendments to the 1984 Maritime Traffic Safety Law. “The revisions are based on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and Chinese laws on the seas, adjacent areas, and exclusive economic zones,” noted the Global Times, a tabloid controlled by the Communist Party’s People’s Daily.

If enacted, the amendments, slated to take effect in 2020, would violate Beijing’s obligations as a signatory to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Specifically, the changes would require foreign ships to obtain permission to pass through “Chinese waters.”

China’s rules are inconsistent with the internationally accepted concept of “innocent passage,” which is incorporated in Section 3 of UNCLOS, as the UN convention is known, and recognized by customary international law.

US Gains Favor in Russian Media, Polls

Nearly three years ago, in the wake of Western governments’ denunciations of the Kremlin’s annexation of Crimea and its invasion of eastern Ukraine, Russian approval of the United States and European countries plummeted. In the Russian media, sanctions placed on Russia by both parties were presented as proof of the West’s determination to destroy or ruin Russia.

But since those events, Russians’ approval of the United States and the West have slowly rebounded from the lows they hit at the beginning of the conflict.

The Swamp Strikes Back

Mike Flynn is finished as President Donald Trump's national security advisor. He lied to the administration and to the public and denied telling Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak that the Trump administration would roll back the Obama administration’s sanctions against Russia. Flynn is admitting now that he “may have” actually said that in a phone call last month, apologized to everybody, and resigned.

How do we know Flynn did it? Because the CIA taped the call and leaked the details. (The CIA was eavesdropping on the Russians, by the way, not on Flynn. It’s what the CIA does.)

The CIA also rejected Flynn deputy Robin Townley’s security clearance, terminating the deputy’s job on the National Security Council.

“They believe this is a hit job from inside the CIA on Flynn and the people close to him,” one anonymous source told Politico. Why might that be happening? Perhaps because, as another anonymous source who is apparently close to the president says, Flynn had been waging “a jihad against the intelligence community.” Trump hasn’t played well with the intelligence community either. You may recall that he compared the CIA and the FBI to Nazi Germany before he was even inaugurated.

The swamp—permanent bipartisan Washington—doesn’t want to be drained. Not by Donald Trump. Not by anybody. And the swamp can strike back—especially the intelligence agencies.

Last November, shortly after Trump won the election, Eli Lake wrote a stirring defense of the Washington swamp for Bloomberg.

But before writing off the swamp entirely, it's worth thinking for a minute about the man we just elected president. While many Americans are no doubt elated, Trump campaigned at times like an authoritarian. He threatened his accusers with lawsuits. He banned members of the press from his events. He promised to jail his opponent, Hillary Clinton. He encouraged, at times, his audience to rough up protesters.

It may be that all of this banana republic bravado was for show. But if this is truly who Trump is, the country will need the permanent political and governing class to stop him. The leaks, slow-rolling and backstabbing that in normal times infuriate those who try to reform Washington will be the first line of defense.

That is exactly what’s happening now, and there is no sign that it’s going to stop.

And this is not strictly about some “jihad” Flynn and Trump have been waging against the intelligence agencies. Plenty of others in Washington outside the CIA are fighting back too over the administration’s chumminess with Russia.

“Putin’s Russia is our adversary and moral opposite,” Republican senator John McCain wrote in an op-ed for USA Today on Monday this week. “It is committed to the destruction of the post-war, rule-based, world order built on American leadership and the primacy of our political and economic values…There is no placating Putin. There is no transforming him from a gangster to a responsible statesman. Previous administrations have tried and failed not because they didn’t try hard enough, but because Putin wants no part of it.”

“It’s as if a hostile foreign power has seized the US government and is by remote control steering it toward the maximum possible catastrophe,” former Bush administration official David Frum tweeted over the weekend.

Representative Elijah Cummings (D-MD) says Flynn should lose his security clearance, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says “we have a National Security Advisor who cannot be trusted not to put Putin before America. National security demands that General Flynn be fired immediately.”

That’s a bit much, and neither Pelosi nor Cummings are convincing national security hawks. One could be forgiven for assuming they are simply whacking the Trump administration with whatever partisan stick is at hand.

There should be no question, however, that the Trump administration, including Mike Flynn, is far too cozy with Russia. Even before Flynn said his boss could roll back American sanctions against Moscow, he was a guest on Kremlin propaganda channel RT (Russia Today). He sat next to Vladimir Putin at RT’s anniversary celebration, and he says he wants to partner with Russia in Syria.

Flynn is not, however, naïve, and contrary to Pelosi he does not put Putin’s interests before America’s.

I read Flynn’s book in November so you don’t have to. In it, he divides the world into two camps of hostiles—radical Islamists and what he calls “the alliance,” which includes Russia, Syria, North Korea, China, Iran, Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela and Nicaragua. He understands perfectly well that Vladimir Putin is an enemy of the United States but wants to team up with the Russians anyway to fight ISIS. It’s a defensible position, but it’s of a piece with the Trump administration’s brazenly pro-Russian position.

Last year on “CBS This Morning,” Trump surrogate Newt Gingrich said “[NATO] countries ought to worry about our commitment. They ought to worry about commitment under any circumstances. Every president has been saying that the NATO countries do not pay their fair share…If Russia were to invade Estonia, I’m not sure I would risk a nuclear war over some place which is the suburbs of St. Petersburg.”

Unlike some countries in Europe, Estonia does “pay its fair share” of the NATO expense burden, which requires member states to spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Estonia spends 2.16 percent while the US spends 3.61 percent. If Gingrich or his boss were to leave the responsible Estonians out to dry in the face of a Russian invasion, NATO would disintegrate overnight and Europe would face its greatest crisis since World War II.

Last summer, Trump said he may be willing to recognize Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region and lift American sanctions against Moscow. If the United States were to recognize Crimea as Russian, we would join a dubious club of rogue states that includes North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela but not a single Western democracy.

Putin, Trump says, is “very smart.” “I think in terms of leadership, he’s getting an A.” “It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond.” He effectively told NBC’s Matt Lauer that Putin was no worse than Barack Obama. “Do you want me to start naming some of the things that President Obama does at the same time?” he said when Lauer rattled off a list of Putin’s crimes.

Earlier this month on Fox News, Bill O’Reilly asked the president if he respects Putin. “I do respect him,” Trump said.

“Why?!” O’Reilly said, visibly shocked. “Putin’s a killer.”

“There are a lot of killers,” Trump said, sounding like a leftist who has read Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky and little else. “You think our country’s so innocent?”

Trump has been defending and even fawning over Vladimir Putin for a year now with remarkable consistency.

Little Estonia, meanwhile, is digging in and preparing to fight an anti-Russian insurgency by itself.

In 2013, Vladimir Putin gave our new Secretary of State Rex Tillerson Russia’s Order of Friendship award. That prize may not be as meaningful as some critics fear, but Tillerson’s experience up until now has been strictly limited to his time at the helm of ExxonMobil, a job he was selected for in part because of his close relationship with Russia.  

And let’s not forget that Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort spent years working for Vladimir Putin’s Ukrainian pawn Viktor Yanukovych until he was toppled in the 2014 revolution, and that Trump’s former foreign policy advisor Carter Page has close ties to the Kremlin and Russian gas giant Gazprom.

“If you're not familiar with Gazprom,” Josh Marshall writes, “imagine if most or all of the US energy industry were rolled up into a single company and it were personally controlled by the US President who used it as a source of revenue and patronage. That is Gazprom's role in the Russian political and economic system. It is no exaggeration to say that you cannot be involved with Gazprom at the very high level which Page has been without being wholly in alignment with Putin's policies. Those ties also allow Putin to put Page out of business at any time.”

So with all that as prologue, news that Flynn discussed lifting the Obama administration’s sanctions against Russia and lied about it is, shall we say, a tad more sensitive than if he’d lied about something relatively innocuous like discussing a new NAFTA agreement with Canada.

Neither the intelligence agencies nor journalists nor the Democratic Party nor the Republican members of Congress who aren’t on the Trump Train are going to put up with this.

China’s Timed Provocation Challenges the US

On Monday, three Chinese coast guard cutters entered Japan’s territorial waters around the Senkaku Islands, in the East China Sea, just two days after Secretary of Defense James Mattis publicly reassured Tokyo that the United States would defend the islands. The Chinese craft, which did not have permission for the incursion, loitered for two hours.

If Mattis’s words are to mean something, the US and Japan need to respond to China’s aggressive behavior.

In December 1971, China made an official claim to the Japanese-administered islands, which Beijing calls the Diaoyus. Taiwan also believes it has sovereignty over the barren and uninhabited outcroppings.

Taipei, a model international citizen when it comes to sovereignty disputes, has engaged in negotiations with Tokyo to settle differences. Indeed, Japan and Taiwan reached a landmark fishing agreement in 2015 regarding waters around the Senkakus.

People Power Rise Up Against Corruption in Romania

In a world that seems to be awash in bad news, there's a terrific story shaping up in Romania.

The government of Prime Minister Sorin Grindeanu took office only a month ago, but one of its early decisions brought hundreds of thousands of Romanians to the streets to protest.

Grindeanu, who represents the Social Democratic Party (PSD), was not his party's first choice to be prime minister. After winning 46 percent of the vote in 2016's parliamentary election, PSD formed a governing coalition but was unable to make its leader, Liviu Dragnea, the prime minister. Mr. Dragnea is currently serving a two-year suspended sentence after being convicted of attempting to rig a 2012 vote on whether to impeach the then-president.

This conviction made him ineligible to serve as the country's prime minister, an unusual situation in a country where it is generally assumed that the leader of the winning party will take that post. He is, however, the chairman of Romania’s parliament, the Chamber of Deputies. The first proposed prime minister was rejected by the president for being too much an agent of Dragnea. The second was Grindeanu.

We Are Still Living With Eisenhower’s Biggest Mistake

The Tower magazine just published my latest long-form piece. Here's the first part.

American presidents make the same foreign policy mistakes over and over again. Intervening when they should not. Sitting on the sidelines when it’s the worst possible choice. Treating friends and allies like dirt while trusting duplicitous hostiles. If, as Karl Marx said, history repeats itself first as tragedy and a second time as farce, what are we supposed to say when history repeats itself decade after decade ad infinitum?

Historians are tasked with delivering us from George Santayana’s curse, where those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, but historians can only save those who take the time to study the historical record, and even then it only works if the historical record is accurate.

Thank goodness, then, for Hudson Institute senior fellow Michael Doran’s valiant attempt to save us from ignorance and bad history in his bracing new book, Ike’s Gamble: America’s Rise to Dominance in the Middle East. He expertly walks us through the Suez Crisis of 1956 and its ghastly aftermath when Republican President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower learned the hard way that Israel, not Egypt or any other Arab state, should be the foundation of America’s security architecture in the Middle East.

When Eisenhower began his first term in 1953, the Cold War was just six years old. Not every country had chosen a side yet. The Middle East and North Africa were for the most part non-aligned, and Eisenhower hoped to bring the Arab world into the American camp.

Great Britain and France were still the predominant Western powers in the region, yet a nationalist anti-colonial wind was blowing—especially in Egypt, where the self-styled Free Officers, led by Mohammed Naguib and the charismatic young Gamal Abdel Nasser, had overthrown King Farouk the previous year. At the time, Nasser and other nationalists in the Arab world seemed to be the vanguard for an entire region, and if Eisenhower wanted the Arabs to stand with Washington against Moscow, he’d have to get on their good side.

Ike was in a tough spot, though, since America’s traditional allies were still colonial powers. Britain and France had drawn most of the Middle East’s borders after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in the waning days of World War I, and they’d installed and continued to maintain several governments in that part of the world. In Egypt’s case, Britain garrisoned troops in the Suez Canal, and both British and French investors owned the Suez Canal Company, which kept almost all the profits from ships transiting to and from the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea. Hostility to the new state of Israel was also rampant from Baghdad to Rabat, especially in Israel’s borderland countries like Egypt.

So Ike and his foreign policy team felt compelled to distance themselves from Britain, France, and Israel to prevent the Arab states from aligning themselves with the Soviet Union. Nasser was fast becoming a leader in region-wide Arab politics, and he wanted what remained of the British Empire out of Egypt entirely. Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles—both natural anti-imperialists—decided to act as an honest broker, as they put it, between Cairo, London, Paris, and Jerusalem.

The U.S. hosted talks between the British and the Egyptians over the status of Britain’s military base in the canal zone, and the Americans effectively took Egypt’s side and strong-armed Britain into signing an agreement mandating a withdraw of all of its soldiers within 20 months. With one victory under his belt, Nasser went after the next. He nationalized the Suez Canal Company, even though it wasn’t supposed to be under Egyptian control until 1968 per the treaty, and he closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping.

On October 29, 1956, Britain, France, and Israel invaded Egypt simultaneously and left Eisenhower holding the bag. Ike thought military action was the worst possible response, but at the same time he hoped for a quick Western victory, and he was exasperated with British delays and incompetence. Even so, he reluctantly took Egypt’s side and imposed crippling economic sanctions that effectively deprived Europe of imported energy. “Those who began this operation,” he told his aides, “should be left to work out their own oil problems—to boil in their own oil, so to speak.”

Britain had no choice but to withdraw, followed by France and Israel.

Ike didn’t feel comfortable doing any of this. Britain and France were American allies, after all, even though they behaved recklessly. He simply felt that he had little choice. “How could we possibly support Britain and France,” he said, “if in doing so we lose the whole Arab world?”

Nasser had conned Eisenhower, however, and he had done it masterfully.

One of Nasser’s deceptions should be familiar to anyone who has followed the painful ins and outs of botched Arab-Israeli peacemaking. Over and over again, Nasser used a strategy Doran calls “dangle and delay.” He repeatedly dangled the tantalizing idea of peace between Egypt and Israel in front of Eisenhower’s eyes, only to delay moving forward for one bogus reason after another. He never planned to make peace with Israel or even to engage in serious talks.

Nasser did, however, participate in theatrical arms negotiations with Washington that he knew would never go anywhere.

Eisenhower wanted to equip the Egyptian army. Nasser wasn’t stupid, though. He knew that Ike would attach strings to the deal. Egypt’s soldiers would need to be trained by Americans, and they’d be reliant on Americans for spare and replacement parts. Nasser really wanted to be armed by and tied to the Soviet Union, but had to pretend otherwise lest Eisenhower side with Britain, France, and Israel. So Nasser slowly sabotaged talks with the United States in such a way that made Washington seem unreasonable. That way, when he turned to the Soviet Union for weapons, he could half-plausibly say he had no choice.

Nasser did such a good job pretending to be pro-American that he convinced the United States to give him a world-class broadcasting network that allowed him to speak to the entire Arab world over the radio. Washington expected him to use his radio addresses to rally the Arab world behind America against the Russians. Instead, he used it to blast the United States with virulently anti-American propaganda and to undermine the West’s Arab allies. “Nasser,” Doran writes, “was the first revolutionary leader in the postwar Middle East to exploit the technology in order to call over the heads of the monarchs to the man on the street. Suddenly the Hashemite monarchy [in Iraq and Jordan] found itself sitting atop volcanoes.”

Nasser strode the Arab world like a colossus after his American-made victory in the Suez Crisis, and he became more brazenly anti-American as he gathered strength. Conning Ike was no longer possible, but Nasser didn’t need the United States anymore anyway.

Read the rest in The Tower magazine.


Missile Defense, North Asia Security on Mattis's Agenda

James Mattis, the new secretary of defense, spoke to his South Korean counterpart Tuesday, confirming to Defense Minister Han Min-koo the US commitment to defend his country “against the evolving North Korean threat.”   

The pledge, given over the phone days before his visit to Seoul, followed President Trump’s telephone conversation with the South’s acting president, Hwang Kyo-ahn, Sunday. During that call, the American leader reiterated the US’s “ironclad commitment” to defend the Republic of Korea, as South Korea is formally known.

Trump, according to the White House, also mentioned “the provision of extended deterrence, using the full range of military capabilities,”code for America’s willingness to use its nuclear arsenal.

World Affairs Statement on Vladimir Kara-Murza's Hospitalization

For the second time in less than two years, Russian dissident Vladimir Kara-Murza was suddenly stricken ill and hospitalized in Moscow this morning. At this moment, he is unconscious, in intensive care, and on life support. His symptoms today are identical to those of two years ago when he was hospitalized under highly suspicious circumstances with many believing he had been poisoned. His wife and three children live in a suburb of Washington D.C.

The Real Problem with Trump’s Executive Order

President Donald Trump’s “Muslim ban” isn’t a Muslim ban. The now-infamous executive order he signed last week bans non-citizens from entering the United States regardless of religion if they come from one of seven Muslim-majority nations. Those affected include Christians, Jews, atheists, pre-Islamic Yazidis, Kurds and the brave souls who risked their lives and no doubt saved American lives while working with and for the United States military.

The travel ban initially even included permanent residents of the United States who weren’t allowed to come home and wouldn’t be allowed to return home if they left.

One of the first people detained at a port of entry was a Yazidi woman whose husband worked for the United States military and already lives here. Yazidis are the victims of ISIS genocide. Blocking her entry and separating her from her husband was the immigration equivalent of the TSA strip-searching nuns at the airport.

Vian Dakhil, an Iraqi Yazidi politician who gave a famous speech in parliament about ISIS’ genocide of her people, will not be able to visit Washington next week to pick up her Lantos human rights prize. Decent people everywhere find this outrageous and stupid and cruel.

A friend of mine moved to the United States last month from Iraqi Kurdistan. He got in just under the wire. His wife needs to return to Erbil for a month to finish her master’s degree, and he sent me an email telling me she can’t go if she wants to come back to her husband, her children and her new home in America. “Things are going well here,” he said when I asked how he’s doing, “but Mr. President is giving me a hard time.”

I hired this man on one of my trips to Iraq. He was my fixer, my translator and my driver. He took me into the war zone in Kirkuk outside the Kurdish autonomous area. I trusted him with my life. He is no terrorist. That’s for damn sure. The United States government also knows he isn’t a terrorist. They vetted him for two years.

I visited Iraq seven times and wrote a book about it. I know better than the president does how mind-bogglingly dysfunctional and dangerous that country is. Taking a closer look at immigrants and refugees from Iraq will never elicit a complaint from me.

But not a single terrorist from Trump’s seven countries—Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen—has ever killed anyone on American soil. Every terrorist who has ever killed anyone inside the United States came from someplace else, and none of those countries are on the travel ban list.

The 9/11 hijackers were from Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

The Boston Marathon bombers came from Russia, one of the few foreign countries our new president is so far unwilling to criticize.

“Shoe bomber” Richard Reid was born in Britain.

The male shooter in San Bernardino was born in the United States. His wife is from Pakistan.

Omar Mateen, the Florida nightclub shooter, was also born in the United States.

If we’d had Donald Trump’s policy on the books without interruption for the past 100 years, not a single American life would have been saved.

*

The radical left is doing what it does best—hyperventilating about a rising Nazi regime in America. As if the United States and its allies killed millions of Germans in the 1940s because a clown like Donald Trump saddled up in Berlin.

Even so, it’s clear now that the White House was far more interested in imposing the most draconian ban possible than in protecting American citizens.

One should never assume malevolence as a motive when incompetence explains a botched outcome just as convincingly, but we know now that much of what happened with the rollout was deliberate. The Department of Homeland Security assumed that the travel ban would not apply to Green Card holders, but the White House overruled DHS and said that the travel ban does indeed apply to permanent residents of the United States.

Aides to the chairmen of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Judiciary Committee, and the House Homeland Security Committee say the Trump administration refused to consult with them or even give them a heads-up about the executive order. It doesn’t take a political rocket scientist to figure out why. They would have watered it down.

During his campaign against Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump said he wants to ban every Muslim on earth from coming here. “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.” Those are his words. He posted them on his website. That declaration is still on his website as of the time of this writing. It has been there for a year now and will almost certainly be there tomorrow.

“When [Trump] first announced it,” former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said in an interview a couple of days ago on Fox News, “he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.’”

That is why thousands of protesters are streaming into airports all over the country, and that is why so many of them are calling Trump’s executive order a Muslim ban even though it is not. What the president wants is as obvious as a skyscraper to everyone who isn’t plugging their ears.

Trump didn’t want to hear from any experienced professional who might convince him to water down his executive order. Rudy Giuliani's team had already gone far enough.

With the apparent exception of General James Mattis, Trump’s terrific pick for Secretary of Defense, Trump wants to hear from as few experienced people as possible who might moderate his positions. How else to explain his appointment of Steve Bannon—publisher of the incendiary Breitbart website that recently included a “Black Crime” section—to the National Security Council while giving the boot to the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? “Who needs to hear from intelligence or military professionals,” Max Boot sarcastically writes in Foreign Policy, “when you can hear from the publisher of Breitbart?”

So things went as planned, but not really. Trump’s disapproval rating shot up 6 points in four days. It’s already above 50 percent. By contrast, Barack Obama’s disapproval rating early in his term was just 12 percent.

Everyone from the far-left to the Trump’s Republican critics are angry. “In the future,” said Michael McCaul, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, “such policy changes should be better coordinated with the agencies implementing them and with Congress to ensure we get it right—and don’t undermine our nation’s credibility while trying to restore it.”

“It would have been smarter to coordinate with us,” Virginia Representative Dave Brat said in an interview with The Atlantic. “They could have done a better job announcing how the complexities were going to work in advance.” Brat, by the way, isn’t a Democrat or a Never Trump conservative. He is a right-wing populist and one of the president’s political allies. At least for now, anyway.

The White House is responding to all this in the time-honored tradition of politics. With lies.

“Ha! That’s my formal response,” said an anonymous Republican Congressman to The Atlantic about White House Spokesman Sean Spicer’s claim that House and Senate Republicans wrote Donald Trump’s immigrant and refugee policy. “There was precisely zero coordination with us on the drafting of this executive order.”

Spicer also argued with a straight face that the travel ban had to be rushed through at once because terrorists would swarm into the country if they had a couple weeks notice. It takes more than a year and often up to two years to be vetted as an immigrant or a refugee. Everyone left stranded and everyone who remains banned have already been vetted. They aren’t illegal immigrants. Unlike Mexican border-hoppers, these people got in line and followed the rules.

“My policy,” Trump says, “is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.”

No, it's not. And that statement can’t be aimed at his base. If Donald Trump’s refugee policy is no different from Barack Obama’s, what was the point of electing him in the first place? The Obama administration slowed down the refugee process for six months in 2011 for entirely sensible reasons, but it never imposed a full travel ban, especially not for permanent residents who already live here.

That’s why nobody protested at the time. To be sure, plenty on the left are partisan hacks—like every other president in American history, both Obama and Trump have their claques of clapping seals who think their guy is right about everything—but no one with a lick of sense ever thought Barack Obama wanted to ban Muslims from the entering the United States.

The president said on Twitter that only 109 people were detained and held for questioning and blamed the chaos on a Delta airlines computer crash.

Sean Spicer said the same thing and more. “Remember we’re talking about a universe of 109 people,” he said. “There were 325,000 people that came into this country over a 24-hour period from another country; 109 of them were stopped for additional screening…I think it’s a shame that people were inconvenienced, obviously. But at the end of the day, we’re talking about a couple hours. I’m sorry that some folks may have had to wait a little while.”

Give us a break. That doesn’t take into account the 348 people in airports all over the world who weren’t allowed to get on planes in the first place, nor does it take into account those, like the Yazidi human rights activist who isn’t welcome here anymore, who were authorized to come here and can’t now. It certainly doesn’t take into account the massive diplomatic and political fallout worldwide or the fact that it feeds into the insane ISIS narrative that the West and the Muslim world are engaged in a clash of civilizations.

American diplomats in Baghdad are warning us—to no avail whatsoever—that our delicate military and political ties are in jeopardy right in the middle of the war against ISIS. You don’t have to take their word for it. Listen to Iraqi General Talib al Kenani in his interview with CBS News. “I’m a four-star general, and I’m banned from entering the U.S.? I have been fighting terrorism for 13 years and winning. Now my kids are now asking if I’m a terrorist? There are many American troops here in Iraq. After this ban how are we supposed to deal with each other? We thought we were partners with our American friends, and now we realize that we’re just considered terrorists.”

The very people we need to keep on our side in the Middle East feel like we hate them, and they aren’t imagining things. The president’s most strident supporters clearly do hate them. The mood in America has grown so alarmingly vicious and reactionary lately that I had to close my comment section for the first time in fifteen years. I will not even consider turning it back on until Donald Trump is out of the White House. The volume of nastiness and hostility is so overwhelming that the entire world is hearing it now that it has a champion in the White House. It’s going to blow back in our faces in ways that we haven’t even figured out yet.  

“It’s a very dangerous thing,” writes Hoover Institution scholar Benjamin Wittes, “to have a White House that can’t with the remotest pretense of competence and governance put together a major policy document on a crucial set of national security issues without inducing an avalanche of litigation and wide diplomatic fallout.”

Former CIA director and retired general David Petraeus is urging the administration to wind down the travel ban as quickly as possible. "Americans should not take the current international order for granted,” he said. “It did not will itself into existence. We created it. Likewise, it is not naturally self-sustaining. We have sustained it. If we stop doing so, it will fray and, eventually, collapse.”

The Trump administration deliberately crafted an executive order to inflict the maximum amount of pain possible, waited for everyone from the radical left to the moderate right to explode, then walked the worst parts of it back and lied about it on television. That isn’t governing. It’s tin-pot theatrics hatched by the former publisher of Breitbart who told journalist and historian Ron Radosh that he wants “to destroy the state” and “bring everything crashing down.” It’s precisely the kind of thing more than 100 conservative foreign policy professionals had in mind last year when they signed a letter saying they refused to work for a Trump administration.

So what’s the real problem with the president’s executive order? The real problem is that President Donald J. Trump has proven himself to be a man who will replace foreign policy, national security, domestic tranquility and America’s reputation with manipulative axe-grinding political drama. “But Hillary” will cut it no more. She is irrelevant now.

Those of us who hoped against the longest of odds that he would grow up and pivot can’t anymore. We know him now as a president and not just a candidate. The gravity of the job is not inspiring him to rise to the majesty of his office. He’s not just boasting about grabbing women by the pussy and yukking it up at sports arenas before howling mobs demanding he throw his political opponent in prison. He’s actually governing now, and he is doing so as a chaos engine.

The Trump era in American history will be every bit as aggressively ugly and stupid as the majority of American voters feared it would be.

Church Condemns Duterte's Bloody War on Drugs

“It looks like he’s having a breakdown,” said John Batchelor on his nationally syndicated radio show on January 18. That day, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte had told Catholic priests to take shabu, methamphetamine, if they wanted to understand his war on drugs. 

Or more precisely, his war on drug dealers, which according to a recent count has claimed the lives of 7,042 people since he took office last June 30. During this time, police had been “pro-actively gunning down suspects,” the conclusion Reuters draws from a 97 percent kill rate in police raids.

The United States Slams the Door on Cuban Refugees

One of Barack Obama’s last acts as president was a total jerk move, and Donald Trump approves of it.

Our outgoing president ended two long-standing policies that helped Cuban refugees flee the oppressive Castro regime and find safe harbor and the opportunity to live free and productive lives in the United States.

First, the “wet feet, dry feet” policy, a modified version of the Cuban Adjustment Act passed in 1966, granted political asylum to Cuban citizens who managed to reach American soil. Obama killed it with a stroke of his pen. Any would-be Cuban refugee who arrives on American shores will now be deported back to Castro’s police state.

Obama also ended the Cuban Medical Professional Parole Program, passed in 2006 during the Bush Administration, which allowed Cuban doctors to defect to the United States through any American Embassy in the world.

The Castro regime hated these policies. Granting asylum to Cubans lucky enough to reach the United States undermined the legitimacy of the dictatorship and put the lie to its propaganda. Any government that drives its own citizens into the ocean to escape has failed catastrophically.

Cuban doctors could defect even more easily. They didn’t have to come all the way to the United States to find shelter. Just reaching one of our embassies was enough, and it happened routinely because Havana exported doctors all over the world to countries that desperately needed medical help. At a glance, Cuba’s overseas doctor program seems like a wonderful thing that only a mean and cold-hearted grouch would ever complain about, but look closer.

Cuba has a dire shortage of medical supplies and personnel at home. When I visited a couple of years ago, I had to bring my own anti-biotics, my own bandages, my own gauze, my own iodine, and other basic medical supplies in case I needed them while I was there because they are not available on the island.

Doctors are hardly available in Cuba anymore either because the government has exported so many of them. A brave soul risked imprisonment a couple of years ago and protested by hanging a sign from his crumbling balcony that read, “Do I have to go to Venezuela for my headache?” Cuban citizens may not have to pay for their healthcare, but they’re languishing in a medical hell.

Cuba doesn’t export doctors because it wants to help sick people in poor countries. It exports doctors because it needs money. Foreign governments pay millions of dollars for Cuban medical services, but nearly 100 percent of it goes not to the doctors who do the actual work but instead to the regime in Havana. The word exploited isn’t strong enough to describe how these people are treated. The Castro regime is basically selling slaves.

And don’t assume for a moment that the Castros have been using the money they “earn” from exploiting these doctors for the welfare of Cuba’s people. The government-imposed Maximum Wage is still only 20 dollars a month, yet ten years ago Fidel Castro’s net worth was estimated at 900 million dollars. For all we know, he was richer than Donald Trump by the time he died, and he got that money not by building anything but by ruling Cuba as if it were a 17th century plantation.

So until now, the United States did virtually everything it could to give Cuba’s suffering people a way out. It’s who we are and it’s what we do.

At least it was who we were and what we did before Barack Obama and Donald Trump. 

Yes, Obama deep-sixed these policies, not Trump, but Trump won’t reverse anything. Last year in an interview with the Tampa Bay Times, our new president said America’s Cuban refugee policies are unfair. “I don’t think that’s fair. I mean why would that be a fair thing? I don’t think it would be fair. You know we have a system now for bringing people into the country, and what we should be doing is we should be bringing people who are terrific people who have terrific records of achievement, accomplishment.... You have people that have been in the system for years [waiting to immigrate to America], and it’s very unfair when people who just walk across the border, and you have other people that do it legally.”

So that’s it, then. Obama slammed the door on Cuban refugees, and Trump is not going to open it. That hardly counts as a bipartisan consensus, but it certainly fits with America First.  

The New Arab-Israeli Alliance

I wrote the following essay for the summer issue of World Affairs. It hasn't been available online until now, but it's just as relevant now as it was when I wrote it.

During the early years of the Obama administration, conventional wisdom in Washington held that the Israeli–Palestinian conflict trumped everything else in the Middle East, that no problem could be resolved until that one was out of the way. “Without doubt,” former president Jimmy Carter said, “the path to peace in the Middle East goes through Jerusalem.” The reason, said his former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, now a professor of foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University, is because, “The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the single most combustible and galvanizing issue in the Arab world.”

Similar views were expressed across the political spectrum, from President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Defense Secretary Chuck Hegel and General David Petraeus.

“If we can solve the Israeli-Palestinian process,” Obama said in 2008, then that will make it easier for Arab states and the Gulf states to support us when it comes to issues like Iraq and Afghanistan. It will also weaken Iran, which has been using Hamas and Hezbollah as a way to stir up mischief in the region. If we’ve gotten an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, maybe at the same time peeling Syria out of the Iranian orbit, that makes it easier to isolate Iran so that they have a tougher time developing a nuclear weapon.”

This has long been a dubious theory and events in the meantime have proven it. The main drivers of chaos in the Middle East are conflicts between Sunni and Shia Muslims, between Arabs and Persians, and between secularists and Islamists. This has been true for decades, but with civil war in Syria, the rise of The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), anarchy in Libya, a region-wide proxy war in Yemen, and an Iran unshackled by sanctions, it is obvious now even to casual observers. The Israeli–Palestinian conflict has been reduced almost to an asterisk.

The effect of all this is something no one would have predicted a couple of decades ago and only the most astute predicted even a couple of years ago—the Sunni Arab world, unofficially led by Saudi Arabia, is quietly forging a de facto alliance with Israel against Iran.

The Sunni Arab world, unofficially led by Saudi Arabia, is quietly forging a de facto alliance with Israel against Iran.

Read the whole thing.


Can Japan's Abe Bridge the Duterte-Washington Divide?

Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visited the Philippines Thursday and Friday last week. He is the first head of government to pay a call on President Rodrigo Duterte, who took office at the end of June.

The meeting between the two leaders reminds one of Abe’s common touch and how valuable he could be to help bridge the divide that has grown between the US and a most troublesome ally.

America’s Moment of Truth About Russia

Donald Trump finally acknowledged that Russia most likely hacked the Democratic National Committee and turned over stolen files to WikiLeaks. “I think it was Russia,” he said for the first time at a press conference earlier this week, though he angrily denied that Russian shenanigans swayed last year’s election. He’s right on both counts.

Until this week, though, the president-elect seemed to trust Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and WikiLeaks founder and fugitive Julian Assange more he trusted than the FBI, the CIA and the NSA. One can only imagine what Republicans would have said if Trump were a Democrat. The Ann Coulter wing would have cried treason—and worse.

“The GOP nominated the most pro-Russian U.S. presidential candidate since Henry Wallace,” Jamie Kirchick writes in the Washington Post, “whose 1948 bid on the Progressive Party ticket was largely run by communists.” Indeed. Yet Trump has flipped both parties on their heads, not just the Republicans. Every Democrat from the east coast to the west is now talking about Vladimir Putin as if he’s the worst person on earth, yet they jeered when the previous Republican Party nominee for president Mitt Romney said Russia was America’s number one geopolitical foe. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years,” Barack Obama said during a presidential debate in 2012.

It’s safe to say that the overwhelming majority of Republican primary voters did not choose Trump because they’re pro-Russia. They’re fed up with the bipartisan political class. They’re sick of illegal immigration. They are tired of being told what they can say and even think. Many appreciate his stance against trade. Working class folks in the Rust Belt feel relieved that somebody is finally paying attention to them. Virtually none of these people clicked “like” on Vladimir Putin’s Facebook page.

Trump is an anomaly. If any other Republican had won the primary and the general election, we would not be having the conversation that never seems to end about Russia. Can you imagine Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio getting defensive on Putin’s behalf? It wouldn’t happen. The Republican Party has been more hawkish on Russia than the Democratic Party for 100 years. Donald Trump is the only Republican that Putin would prefer over a Democrat, and he’s the only Republican who would even briefly take Russia’s side against the FBI and the CIA.  

I doubt Trump even looks at it that way. Mostly he’s just being defensive. He feels like the legitimacy of his election is being called into question, but no one with much sense thinks he won because of anything Russia did. He won because he flipped Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania from the Democratic column to the Republicans for parochial reasons that are almost unique to those states. Under what theory would Russia’s DNC hack and the exposure by WikiLeaks affect votes in a handful of Rust Belt states but nowhere else?

So let’s get two things clear. Donald Trump did not hack the DNC. Vladimir Putin did. Trump is entirely innocent of that crime. Nor did he win the election because of that crime.

But no mainstream critic of WikiLeaks and the Kremlin is saying Trump did it or that he won because of it. That’s certainly not what the FBI and the CIA have been saying, nor is it what critical Republican senators like John McCain and Lindsey Graham are arguing.

Trump did not need to be so prickly and defensive, and he still doesn’t seem to grasp that Putin isn’t his friend. “If Putin likes me, that’s an asset,” he said. No. It is not. Putin wants what’s good for Russia, not what’s good for the United States. Putin doesn’t “like” Trump anyway. He certainly doesn’t like Trump in the same way Trump’s base does.  

The president-elect seems to find it a shame that we can’t get along with a white Christian country with its capital in Europe at a time when we’re both facing threats from radical Islamists. It is exasperating, but everyone needs understand something. Yes, Russia is Christian and white, and the smaller part of that country is on the European continent, but it does not belong to the West. Russians have defined themselves against the West for longer than any of them have been alive. When they say “the West,” they are referring to us, not to themselves. In the Russian mind, the West is a hostile Other.  

Our next president won’t be any more successful resetting America’s relations with Russia than the last two presidents were, and it won’t be his fault. “Russia does not aspire to be like us,” writes Russia expert Molly McKew in Politico, “or to make itself stronger than we are. Rather, its leaders want the West — and specifically NATO and America — to become weaker and more fractured until we are as broken as they perceive themselves to be. No reset can be successful, regardless the personality driving it, because Putin’s Russia requires the United States of America as its enemy.”

Russian propaganda has been among the most effective in the world for at least a century. The communists used it (along with money, advisors and guns) to export their deranged revolution to Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America, and to this day some their tropes still poison the minds of far-leftists all over the world.

The Kremlin’s propaganda in the 21st century is less brazen and obvious. It’s more insidious because it’s less overtly ideological. Russia sometimes uses it to promote the positions of right-wing populists like France’s Marine Le Pen in Europe. Some of it, meanwhile, is aimed at the Western left. The very same intelligence report that details Russia’s hacking of the DNC reveals that the Kremlin broadcasts bogus anti-fracking propaganda in the United States for a reason that ought to be obvious—American fracking hurts Russia’s oil and gas industry, the only industry in the entire country that’s healthy. Some Russian propaganda, like many of the fake news stories that circulated last year, doesn’t even appear on the surface to come from Russia at all.

The purpose of the Kremlin’s disinformation is not to export Putinism to the rest of the planet. Its purpose, instead, is “to erode our values,” McKew writes, “our democracy and our institutional strength; to dilute our ability to sort fact from fiction, or moral right from wrong; and to convince us to make decisions against our own best interests.”

At some point, Vladimir Putin is going to stab Donald Trump in the front. He’s a scorpion, and that’s what scorpions do. He doesn’t have much of a choice. He’ll have to stab Trump in the front or reverse Russia’s national interests. He’d have to pitch his entire worldview over the side, a worldview that was nurtured in the Soviet Union and hardened in the KGB’s Directorate S. Which do you think is more likely?

American politics is supposed to stop at the water’s edge. It seems an almost quaint notion nowadays, but we need to find our way back. Donald Trump and his Republican allies should always unite behind the Democratic Party against a hostile foreign actor like Vladimir Putin for one simple reaon. Because the Democratic Party is ours. Likewise, even the most strident anti-Trump progressives need to rally behind the incoming president when the choice is between an enemy and one of ours.

Russia is using an ancient strategy against the United States—divide and conquer, or at least divide and disrupt.

Resist.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - blogs