Questions From Helsinki

President Trump’s enormous misstep in Helsinki, heaping praise onto Putin was a strange misstep that casts doubt on what had seemed like a brilliant few months of politicking.  While the President has been repeatedly vilified in the news, his string of accomplishments had been growing, and it seemed in many cases that he was almost goading many of his opponents into vilifying him while positive results continued to stack up.

Tax reform has produced the lowest unemployment in the history of unemployment tracking.  His general style of creating chaos merely to create a trading chit has proved largely effective as a bargaining chip, while serving to simultaneously rally his base.  The trade war with China may yet yield results, and the short-term negative economic effects are largely offsetting (and probably keeping inflation in check while the market absorbs the cash influx of reduced tax burdens).  While they continue to look (unsuccessfully) for opportunities to create chaos and flexibility, North Korea is moving faster and harder than they ever have toward denuclearization having already dismantled several sites.

Related: Korean Reunification Will Never Work, And Here’s Why

The political fallout from child separation was neutralized (and perhaps made a political win) when he capitulated, causing Democrats to move the goalposts from “stop separations” to “abolish ICE” – leading to the massive primary upset of Joe Crowley by an incredibly talented (but incredibly socialist) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, which distracted the party and dragged them horribly out of the mainstream.  His press secretary’s (Sarah Sanders) ejection from a DC area restaurant prompted calls for harassment of his entire administration – shaking America’s confidence in one of the few reprieves they had to offer the American people – an end to all the unsettling chaos of our current political discourse.

SIGN UP TO READ MORE!

 

Subscribe for free to receive similar content. 

“I Still Believe In My Country And Party”

[Last year we published several articles under the category “Define Your Patriotism.” In light of the NFL controversy and other major issues, such as proposed tariffs and the upcoming North Korea Summit, we felt that revisiting several articles in this category would be helpful at a time when many of us might be questioning our patriotism.] 

My first association of patriotism with myself comes from my family history of military service. All of my brothers, my sister, my uncles and aunts, grandparents and great aunts were in the Army. The vast majority served in wartime, and so did I. How I was raised undoubtedly framed how I’ve thought about my country, and I’m not afraid at all to say that I’m very, very inclined to side with my own country over the World. However, I do feel that our position gives us a responsibility to have an impact in the World. American values – freedom of expression and religion, human rights, property rights, self-determination, and the idea that those rights are worth dying for – for all people – frame how I think about my country and the World.

Related: “Patriotism Is A Dirty Word”

The last few years of politics in the street have been hard to watch, but I still believe our core ideals (though we may not always follow them) are the best in human history, and our system will ultimately bring us back to our ideals. Populism has its place in the center of a democracy, but the Bill of Rights is there to keep the majority from oppressing the minorities. An electoral college makes sure our leadership reflects both the will of all people and the importance of consensus of the different ways of life across our many states and districts. The three branches of government are there to keep any one branch of government from dominating the others, and the Bill of Rights contains the elements that keep all branches of government from ever wrestling power from our citizens. That’s the brilliance of American democracy.

I believe in promoting our values overseas, and the idea of our ideals making possible again Reagan’s idea of the “Shining City upon a Hill”. We are still the country that brought down the Soviet Union with a steady and orchestrated combination of military and economic might, and I believe the US still has a leadership role to play in the World that we should not surrender to Europe, China or a global coalition.

The daily politics of the past few years has bothered me a lot. It feels like a bulk of the country thinks about either “I want this, or I need this, so I have a right”, or “mine is mine”, or at least each side frames the other that way- very successfully. Natural rights aren’t things people have to do for you, they are things they can’t do for you. Citizens have the right to be treated equally before the courts, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Whether they catch happiness or fail is up to their desire, determination and ability, and failure is part of life. Collective healthcare may or may not be a good idea, but it’s a privilege and not a right that one person (regardless of their means) provides that care for another.

By the same token, far too many with means focus only on “what’s mine is mine”. The free markets of the US, the roads we drive on and the infrastructure of safety and order that predicate the wealth-creation of our country require that everyone in the US must have an opportunity to succeed and a place in society. Without that, the environment of order that makes our economy great doesn’t work. Furthermore, whether inside or outside of government, our duty to our fellow man isn’t one we can forget by pushing others away. It may be that’s not the job of the government, but if it’s not, it’s because we private citizens instead make the active effort to create that opportunity for others on our own. If you say it’s the private market’s job because the private market is more efficient (as I do believe), you are placing that responsibility for your fellow citizens holistically on your church, your private organization or on yourself. You can’t say “I already pay my taxes so I’m good” and then just fight for lower taxes.

Conservatism didn’t use to be just about saying “no.” It used to be a vision for the US that our founders’ ideals were superior – that America has a dominant place in the World- and a vision with a place for all people.   We were the ‘Party of Lincoln’ when we were the first to foster the idea that “all men were created equal” really meant all men- and then all humans. We were the ‘Party of Reagan’ when we believed in our special role with a duty to defend the World and promote democracy globally. I still believe in my country and my party, and it’s my hope that in the coming years, my patriotism will help me guide those I care about in making sure that our next evolution in conservatism is not simply the ‘Party of Me.’

How do you define your patriotism?

Subscribe for free to receive LCR perspectives. 

This article was originally published on 3 July 2017.

Korean Reunification Will Never Work, and Here’s Why

In response to Trump Succeeds Where Obama Did Not

I have great hope for the upcoming talks with North Korea, and I agree that the tone and setting are different than they’ve ever been before.  That said, while there is a possibility of everyone getting what they want (and thus currently a sense of great optimism in the possibility by all sides, and a thrust of welcoming outreach as each party sets up for the talks), there remain quite a few conflicting, zero-sum core objectives that are likely to color the actual talks and their ultimate impact.

First among these is reunification itself.  While reunification is a North and South objective, “reunification” looks very different in the minds of the two heads of state.  These two nations remain at war because each of their governments is unwilling to not be the surviving entity.  Further, reunification is China’s worst outcome.  China is at times uncomfortable with the DPRK and sees a nuclear North as problematic, but ultimately, their needs are best met by having a divided Korea and a buffer state between China and US-aligned South Korea.  North Korea is unlikely to re-align with the West regardless of North/South relations, and is unlikely to open itself up much at all.

Northern power is based on their own narrative and control of information.  Strict adherence to this policy has given the Kim dynasty firm control over a starving population.  Family reunification on any meaningful scale is likely to provide an infection of truth that might well topple their hold on the hearts and minds of the North Korean people.  As such, hopes of reunification (even among families) seems hard to imagine.

Additionally, we have come to this place precisely because the DPRK is on the brink of developing a nuclear missile that can hit the US mainland.  This attention and recognition was precisely the DPRK’s objective in building this weapon, and when the talks are over and the DPRK improves its situation from desperately starving to abject poverty through foreign aid, they are likely to realize once again that their best alternative is to tear up any nuclear concessions and go back to threatening the world with nuclear weapons.

What worries me is the only end to this loop is a sub-optimal outcome nearly everyone in the region.  Imagine a world where the DPRK after successful agreements violates those concessions and returns to weapon production.  The US strikes a deal with China that the US will destroy the weapons sites with force, but will allow China (not South Korea) to enter.  South Korea bears the brunt of a conventional artillery barrage, but repels a DPRK advance – but at great loss of life.  North Korea becomes either part of China proper or a puppet vassal state, likely ending the prospect of Korean reunification for at least the next 100 years.  In order to gain China’s acquiescence, the US would likely have to agree to cede our heavy presence in the Pacific – greatly reducing the US footprint on land and water, and likely leaving South Korea, Taiwan, Australia and Japan to deal with China as the unequivocal regional hegemon.

And Trump may well like that deal.  It protects the US from a nuclear threat (America first), moves the US back from our global posture (which he has said from the start is among his objectives), and in exchange for the US conceding regional hegemony to China (which he and many others see as merely a realistic eventuality), he is likely to get strong trade concessions that will benefit US industry in the short term.  In the thousand year sense, China also likes that deal – with the US gone from the region, they return to their rightful place atop the Asian region- achieved through negotiations, money and Korean (not Chinese) blood.

So while all of that is good for the US and China, it may be a bit early to start handing out Nobel Prizes.  The Trump/Xi version of Realpolitik is more likely to look like it did in the Franco-Prussian era- like two great powers carving out their spheres of influence.  Perhaps I’m wrong.  But we will see…

Despite Crazy News Cycle… We Should Remain Focused On Mueller

The media buzz around Meuller…

Two weeks ago as the President began to ratchet up his rhetoric against the Russia investigation, the press spent four days trying to drum up a narrative that Mueller was about to be fired, setting off a constitutional crisis. The basis was that the President was frustrated, attacking Mueller directly (which hadn’t happened before) and his past firing of Comey made it at least plausible that he might do something irrational. In supporting the narrative, CNN spent the weekend asking every GOP senator they could find whether they would support firing Mueller. As anyone could imagine, they were not supportive, and their solicited statements served to further whip up urgency that Mueller’s days were numbered. I truly don’t believe that anyone in the media thought that was really on the table; instead, a narrative to fill a slow news cycle on a Sunday.

Far more plausible is that the President ratcheted up his rhetoric because he had been promised by his lawyers the probe was going to wrap up soon. Against the President’s instincts, John Dowd had been promising him that compliance (not bravado) would carry the day. That’s not the President’s natural way, but he relented. The result was a probe that continued, and when his lawyers brought him the news that he was about to be asked to testify, he blew up at both his counsel (who he promptly dismissed), and without trust in their guidance, lashed out again in frustration. While that is petulant, childish and wholly unpresidential, that’s been no different from most of his tweets over the past year. It’s equally likely that a president who never seemed to collude with his Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, OMB chief or House and Senate leaders, also never took the time to collude with anyone on his staff talking to Russia (albeit more out of ADD than any principled stand), and is frustrated that his job is to put out a message, and yet Russia (and Stormy Daniels) have been the message over and over.

If the President didn’t understand with Comey, he understands now that the end of Mueller is the end of his administration. I can’t imagine any responsible person on either side of (or even 50 miles from) the aisle that wants any part of a president who actively colluded with an enemy nation to win his election. If that’s proven, all agree that he’s done. Further, if Mueller is fired before completing his work, the best possible outcome for the White House would be a re-start with a far more difficult prosecutor with far more reason to dig. The president firing Mueller is most likely the dream scenario for those starkly opposed to this president. Far more likely is that it drags on for another year, hangs shade over all of Washington for years to come, further pulls all of America toward the far right and far left, and we all spend the next 3 (to 7?) years reading what Jimmy Kimmel used to call “mean tweets.” These days that seemed like an antiquated characterization… These days, they’re just tweets.

Conversative Vet Responds to SOTU

The nature of the state of the union speech, with its widely disseminated advance copies and formal nature, proved to be the most presidential delivery of any speech the president has given since his inauguration speech. While he seemed bored at times he did appear presidential. Still, it was a good moment for him (if only by comparison).

Nonetheless, it appeared that there were a number of cases he could have made stronger.

The power of that platform, speaking directly to the American people gave him a window to appeal for this wall – and for his amnesty plan… the great compromise that he’s proposed still needs a horse to drive through the legislature, and this was the perfect time to  demand the masses to be that horse – possibly sealing the issue and easily skirting another impending shutdown.

It was a missed opportunity that will likely gain even more attention should we be back again looking at a closed government with Schumer sitting on his hands.

His comment on Apple’s $350bn also seemed odd – while it’s a large number, it seemed to me that it was the first offer to see if the IRS of the new regime would accept that as “enough” as a strategy to onshore corporate income under the new tax reform laws. By touting it in his speech, he may have possibly intended to set the model for other US multinational companies, but he likely gave Apple an early pass before their time.

He generally made a good case for the economy, which is likely his most compelling argument and point of strength. I wonder, though, if he has the ability to stay on message and for how long.

Tonight our government felt sort of normal for the first time in a while… but I admit, I’m waiting with bated breath for the other shoe (or tweet) to drop.

The Life And Times of Bowe Bergdahl

Bergdahl is going home. Getting to that answer has taken the Army more than three years – after the Obama administration traded him for five of the worst terrorists in Guantanamo. There’s a lot to unpack in this.

Working backward:

Bowe Bergdahl was a dumb kid who did dumb kid things. While that’s true, sometimes dumb kid things get you killed or land you in prison in awful places of the world – just ask Otto Warmbier who went to North Korea against all advice, was imprisoned for stealing a poster from his hotel hallway and was released by the DPRK after 17 months in his final days after what seems to have been massive brain damage from torture. Neither Bergdahl nor Warmbier deserved such consequences, but that’s beside the point – sometimes the costs of bad decisions are too much to bear. I don’t fault the military judge who decided five years in the awful place Bergdahl was locked away was enough. That military judge was making a decision based on facts and circumstances and American justice. I probably would have given prison time, but that isn’t the painful issue to me. The painful issue is that we traded to get Bergdahl back at all.

The decision to trade him back fits with President Obama’s core beliefs. They are beliefs I don’t demonize, but in this application, I deeply disagree. President Obama pardoned or commuted huge numbers of people whom he believed were US citizens who were in jail beyond the bounds of justice. This fits solidly with that tenet of justice he holds dear. It’s a good concept, and while I may not have made those commutations, the decision to do so is not outrageous and is consistent with much of his world view. The decision also fits with President Obama’s longstanding view that Guantanamo should be closed. Releasing five of the worst inmates in the entire place certainly seems to reduce the level of need on many of the other members. Again – his concept of American justice is not invalid, but in practice these people were there because short of murdering them, there seemed no other way to remove them from a world of free people those individuals were determined to kill and maim. They were not in prison to serve time, but to keep them away from those they would harm. In one stroke, the president moved closer to both of those objectives which were noble in concept, consistent with good values and extremely dangerous to the long term safety of Americans and the West.

Most of those prisoners in Guantanamo were captured at great risk to American lives. By all rights, they should have died on the battlefield in Afghanistan rather than being captured. That we went to such pains to take them alive was due to an over-arching need for information about the attacks they had just unleashed on the US and a sense of fear that they had more already in planning. In trying to learn what we could from them, we did a number of things America says it doesn’t believe in – including torture and indefinite extra-judicial detention. That was misguided and horribly unfortunate, but we are at much greater risk for their release.

Also at issue is the precedent we set by trading so many high profile people for such a marginalized soldier – captured by his own criminal act of desertion for reasons that still seem either frivolous or simply disingenuous. Such actions show that the way for terrorists to engineer further releases is through further capture of American citizens. In the coming years we will likely re-learn what the hostage negotiators of the 60s and 70s learned about negotiating with terrorists: it breeds more negotiation with more terrorists.

Bowe Bergdahl didn’t deserve another term in a US prison, but he did deserve to spend whatever time was due with the Taliban until a US force could find him and mount a real rescue operation that kept those evil men we had separated from society in a place where they could do no more harm. It wasn’t the prison Bergdahl deserved, but it was the right and rational consequence of his circumstances. The “Taliban Five” are already largely back plotting death and destruction to the West – and they are among the few free, living people alive who remain from the pre-9/11 days who are really, really good and experienced at doing just that.

Additionally, we’ve set the precedent that any American traveling abroad is a living, breathing ticket to release the worst terrorists ever to speak the words “Death to America.” President Obama did truly act in a manner that’s consistent with most of what we value as Americans in making what I’m sure was a hard choice. Unfortunately for us, I fear no good deed will go unpunished.

The Accidental President

Six months later, amidst NFL tweets and a speech at the UN against Iran and North Korea, which sounded a bit like it was written by a speechwriter from Iran or North Korea, it still doesn’t feel quite like reality.

Even so, and although I’m not even sure it’s part of some brilliant plan anymore, there are two things that may have made this a time for a president that seems completely willing to descend into chaos: DACA and North Korea.  I understand that raises some eyebrows, but hear me out.

Despite what the President said over and over before the election on DACA, and as scary as it is to be on the train right now, I’m not certain he hasn’t done the dreamers a favor.  Press even Chuck Schumer or Dianne Feinstein to explain the legality of President Obama’s DACA program and they are hard pressed.  They know it’s not legal, and they know it’s their own Congress that’s being usurped by executive order.  They’re also extremely uncomfortable with letting the precedent of executive privilege sit with any president- but especially this one.  If these attorney generals took their case to this Supreme Court, defended by this solicitor general, DACA likely would be overturned.  Despite the rhetoric, the six-month delay to give Congress time to fix it (ie- demand they fix it) seems likely to have the votes it would need to clear, and if the President really is willing to sign it (looks very much like he is), this could be a constitutional crisis averted.  President Obama did DACA by executive order because he had to.  If Trump makes this law, it will be one point on the board for America as partial compensation for the pain of watching TV every day.

The other may be North Korea.  Now- I’m not certain that we won’t be engaged in armed conflict – possibly nuclear-armed conflict – with North Korea in the coming two years.  That said, for ten years they have been swearing that they will kill all of us in a sea of fire and building their nuclear arsenal and missile capability while president after president said “don’t do that or else…”  and they keep going, and there’s no “or else” that seems to matter.  It could well be that there was no way for this to end well for the US, that eventually this conflict was coming, and waiting for them to catch up to full nuclear capability would make it worse, not better.  If that’s true, maybe it’s prudent to end this 50-year standoff before the DPRK truly does bring a nuclear ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) system online.  And I’m not sure a traditional, prudent president in the mold of anyone since Eisenhower would have been willing to take the personal risk of a preemptive strike (which is likely to have horrible repercussions in the best of circumstances)- even though that same president may know it’s the most prudent course of action for the World.

I still can’t watch news live.  It hurts. But if in 2 years’ time, DACA is law and the DPRK is no longer a threat to the World, this president will have a legacy that might look better to history than it looks on Twitter.

Transgender in the Military – A Case in Political Hijackings by Democrats and Republicans

Trump’s reversal on the DoD’s direction on transgender service members was indeed surprising. The path seemed well on its way, and in many ways seemed initially unlikely to turn around – despite having been rushed and having some real practical considerations.

The reason the Obama administration acknowledged transgender service members last, and why it was not fully implemented during his administration, was because of the complexity of the medical services required. Gay military members had been serving quietly for quite some time – that change was made quickly with not much more than a shrug from the services.  Opening all career fields to women took at least some changes – including selling service members on the idea that standards for combat forces would not change, we were just doubling the potential candidate pool (which if done without quotas should in all cases lead to more competitive standards in all areas, not less).  Three brave and talented female soldiers subsequently graduated from the US Army’s Ranger School, and West Point’s most recent branch night included a number of new female infantry officers.

Medical treatment for transgender service-members is more complex for the services. Sex reassignment is an expensive, risky, time-consuming major surgery. It requires a litany of interviews and psychological reviews to ensure the individual has thought through the process and that the surgery is responsible and beneficial, and once done, it has a long recovery period and requires lifetime hormone therapy. If a person (even with a good prognosis) looked likely at the outset to need such a large medical procedure of another kind, the candidate would under long-standing policy be medically ineligible for service, and for good reason: Military service members retire after 20 years and then collect benefits for a lifetime. That’s an expensive investment- especially if 2 years may make them non-deployable for surgery at a minimum, and for years after they continue with guaranteed medical needs and lifetime complications (and sanitary requirements) that may be difficult to ensure in the filthy, harsh business of war in dark places. For this reason, it was slow-walked (although made to progress at least in lip service) and was rushed to implementation only when it became clear that HRC would not be the next president.

However, the DoD does quite a few un-economic things, and many argued that the social benefits outweigh the cost of complications for a very small number of service members. As they would say: if we can deal with $500 toilet seats, we can deal with this, and as a social venture, proving that a transgender person can make it in the service should prove they can make it in the world as well. Also, the DoD had set a path under the Obama administration and that should carry a lot of momentum. Career choices (like joining or leaving the military) are ones with long-dated consequences to service members’ lives. So is one’s commitment to a sex change operation (obviously). People expect to make those decisions based on stable policies over time. So while the initial policy direction was rushed and perhaps ill-considered, it’s reversal seems also rushed and ill-considered.

Until you look at the underlying reasons for both: Barack Obama rushed the decision because he had made a commitment to advance a LGBTA agenda, and had reached a point where he had to set course or let it go. While the DoD had briefed him on the special medical considerations, risks, costs, and was messaging hard to wait for more study, it was clear that study would not continue under Trump as it would have under HRC. The resulting action felt like “DoD- this is more important than military readiness, and even though we aren’t ready to implement, I have political commitments – so you need to figure it out.” That’s an annoying reason to rush implementation. Likewise, the reversal seems also to be less about readiness and more about convincing the Tea Party wing of the GOP (which tends to overlap heavily with the religious right) that they should approve of Trump’s infrastructure budget (most notably a wall across the Mexican border that apparently will eventually be reimbursed by Mexico). Granting Senate Tea Partiers a Pyrrhic victory of savings from a few people (as well as the rejection of a social issue) seemed to be an easy administrative fix for a President getting ready to present a budget case this fall that looks harder to pass than even an Obamacare repeal… and the services (and recruits and service members) are simply horses for trading.

So now we are in a place where any decision is a bad decision. It could have made sense to say that transgender service members (unless they would definitively say they did not require and would not request a sex change operation during their service) were not in the best interest of the services – just as cancer survivors or others with extensive medical needs are not. On the other hand, one administration just told service members to raise their hands for help if they wanted it; the next seems willing to cut those hands off. That’s a horrible precedent and seems like a betrayal to people that have asked to defend us while we sleep.

We all as individuals need to do better in judging our elected officials and get beyond the sound bites. Getting your way is only better if it results in better outcomes. These last few years have divided us greatly in our views on the direction of the country. Debate is good. Progress is good. Making the world a better place is good. But we would all do well to remember that change takes planning, and ideology takes thoughtful implementation, and throughout its entire life cycle and repeal, this issue saw none of that from either side, and the losers were all of us.

Want to read similar content from the Left, Center, Right? SUBSCRIBE for only $2/month.

Even Jamie Dimon Sounds Like Middle America

Jamie Dimon: “It’s almost an embarrassment being an American citizen!”

What a difference six months has made – Last January, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon couldn’t stop talking about the “moment of opportunity” at the start of the Trump Presidency. At the time, he believed what many Republicans believed: that with the election behind us, the President would appoint a cabinet that could assemble policy plans even if he didn’t oversee them directly, that Congress would support those plans, draft legislation and reform that was in parity with White House policy and the President would sign it. Ah- what dreams may come…

In my day job, I must have listened to 200 or more bank earnings calls, and JPMorgan’s is one of the most important. They are generally stale and rehearsed- almost like a State of the Union address. So it’s hard to imagine this was an off-the-cuff exclamation by a long-standing, experienced leader.  But it was in some ways comforting to see an uber-conservative, powerful, connected person like Jamie Dimon feel as helpless as the rest of us as we near the second fight over an Obamacare repeal that increasingly seems to be going sideways, with bank reform, tax reform and a real budget plan still over the horizon.

Wall Street has much to fear from this stagnation. Much of the “Trump Rally” of early 2017 was due to expectations of a “lightning fast” administration that expected to already have unilaterally repealed Obamacare, put out a new budget with sweeping tax cuts, a $1 trillion (with a ‘T’) infrastructure plan, higher interest rates, a boost in GDP growth, and a massive re-vamp of Dodd-Frank alongside sweeping policy changes for bank capital plans. As the train backs up from a 2017 agenda to 2018 at best, a whole year of growth that may already be “baked in” to 2017 earnings (especially in financials) looks more and more like over-optimism… and the pain of that shortfall will be shouldered heavily by Dimon.

It feels like something’s gotta give, and my guess – maybe even my hope – is that it’s the Senate filibuster. Maybe the 60 vote cloture rule really is a relic of a lost era – when the point really was just to make sure all sides had a chance to speak (not to hold hostage the democratic process), and filibusters were rare – rather than the universal means to halt any legislation at all. Senators – this is why we can’t have nice things.

It’s time to pick an agenda and go. Repeal or move on. Obamacare is important, but tax and budget planning are the backbone of GDP projections, corporate growth and earnings, and a myriad of corporate planning objectives for the next 5 years. The Senate has set its time table based on their internal politics, and the country has spoken – that just can’t be the timeline. Godspeed, Senator McCain, I wish you a speedy recovery. But it isn’t just about one vote. It’s time to get this past us and move on to the next phase of economic growth- or by October, the “Trump Rally” may yet be another bear market.

 

1947 National Security Won’t Work in 2017

Our own national security’s structure has been largely the same since the passing of the National Security Act in 1947- the act that created the Department of Defense, CIA and the National Security Counsel  (along with the total reorganization of our military forces).  That act is now 70 years old, and so is the structure.   For a long time, that large siloed system made a lot of sense.  In the 1980s, the main three threats facing the US weren’t all that dissimilar to those in 1947.  Those threats included: 

  • A nuclear arms race with the Soviets.
  • A wall separating Germany.
  • A world largely aligned behind one of the two superpowers that fought, or financed proxy wars for influence around the globe, with the “third world” so named as unaligned countries almost as an afterthought in our overall security interests. 

 

How much different is that than the current environment of porous borders in small, underdeveloped countries around the world.  One could in fact make an argument that the most dangerous countries in the world today aren’t rogue states, but failed states (or failing states).   Successfully limit the maneuverability of the government of Iran and you’ve limited the maneuverability of Iran.  Do the same in the recognized leadership of Somalia, and you have accomplished almost nothing on the ground- and yet those states not in control of their own borders (such as Somalia, Waziri regions of Pakistan, and Yemen) comprise some of the largest threats to global security precisely because they are regions where a little bit of money and a whole lot of interest in training willing participants to go forth and do violence elsewhere can be the greatest single threats to our current security.  And yet we must still at least prepare for a future situation where other rising superpowers (such as China) will continue to exert more and more influence in Asia and eventually the world.  However you feel about what “really” happened in Ghazni, it makes the point that despite nearly 4,000 paratroopers on the ground in Italy- just across the Mediterranean, the siloed distinctions between conventional forces, intelligence and foreign relations, seem no longer structured to efficiently and quickly respond to threats.

Secretary of State Tillerson and Secretary of Defense Mattis were together in Australia a few weeks ago, and they seemed to be working closely together in the current administration.  That’s maybe a good start, but the silos below them still fan out with duplicative efforts and uncoordinated arms that make current operations of relief, local interactions with locals and transmission of information in a timely manner much more difficult as the lines of diplomacy, intelligence gathering become increasingly blurred and fluid, and it seems time for some rethinking of that structure. 

In an executive branch that so far seems light on details, this seems like a tall order for the NSC’s principals in their early years, but a necessary one to re-think.  As technology continues to improve the tools of terror, rather than focusing first on blanket policies that most negatively affect compliant visitors to the US, restructuring ourselves for the new era seems likely to yield greater results than re-instituting this travel ban, but that takes more than an executive order.  I’m still waiting to see how much interest this administration has in the sorts of important details that don’t fit neatly into a Twitter tweet.