Originally posted by kato
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
NATO summit
Collapse
X
-
"...its about as much a hollow threat as Merkl talking about self reliance when it comes to defense."
Perhaps. More likely it's about relying upon Russia not to attack as opposed to relying upon America to defend.
Nothing else would change. Most notably their current defense budget."This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs
Comment
-
https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-trump/528609/
The Death Knell for America's Global Leadership
In an op-ed, the Trump administration’s “adults in the room” envision America in the image of its leader: selfish, isolated, brutish, domineering, and driven by immediate appetites rather than ideals or even longer-term interests.
David Frum 10:22 AM ET Global
H.R. McMaster and Gary Cohn may not be the most influential people in the Trump White House. But the national-security adviser and the director of the National Economic Council are surely the White House’s most presentable faces. When they sign their names to a statement of Trumpism at its most dangerous, we are warned: The so-called adults in the room are shirking their responsibilities.
On Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed bearing McMaster’s and Cohn’s names. It’s a good guess they did not actually write very much of it. However, they now own it—and the United States must bear the consequences.
The op-ed originates as an attempt to tell a story of success about Donald Trump’s catastrophic first trip abroad. During that trip the president spoke at the dedication of a monument to NATO’s Article 5 pledge of mutual defense—but notably omitted to endorse Article 5 itself. That omission was heard loud and clear. Its power was only amplified by the shadowy Russian connections of Donald Trump, his family, and his entourage. In private meetings, NATO leaders were dismayed by Trump’s behavior and bearing, so much so that the ultra-cautious chancellor of Germany declared in a major speech shortly after Trump’s departure that Europeans could no longer completely rely on the United States. Her chief political opponent in autumn elections agreed with her, and went further, comparing Donald Trump to an authoritarian leader.
So that’s the pig on which McMaster and Cohn tried to put lipstick. How’d they do it?
First step is the Trump administration’s fail-safe response to embarrassment: untruth.
As the president stated in Brussels, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is rooted in “the courage of our people, the strength of our resolve, and the commitments that bind us together as one.” While reconfirming America’s commitment to NATO and Article 5 …
In any event, the WSJ op-ed confirms: He did not mean it.
Here is a key passage:
The president embarked on his first foreign trip with a clear-eyed outlook that the world is not a “global community” but an arena where nations, nongovernmental actors, and businesses engage and compete for advantage. We bring to this forum unmatched military, political, economic, cultural, and moral strength. Rather than deny this elemental nature of international affairs, we embrace it.
Since 1945, American leaders have based policy on two facts: a zone of cooperation encompassing democratic, rule-of-law states; a zone of completion between the group of democracies and other groups on this planet. Within the zone of cooperation, the usual frictions and disagreements of international life were to be managed by rules, especially trade rules, adjudicated by neutral arbiters. The ultimate expression of national power—military force—would be put utterly beyond the realm of things to be contemplated. But even such less-extreme manifestations of sovereignty as intelligence gathering would be done collectively, as if in this area the five closest democracies—the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—almost formed one government.
The national egoism that had inflicted so much suffering before 1945 would be suppressed on a new vision in which international politics would come to look more and more like domestic politics.
This vision was not always achieved of course. There were and are many disputes even between friends. But the theory of the case was that within the democratic world, cross-border cooperation would be regarded as the norm and the ideal; state-versus-state competition would be abnormal and unwelcome. All established democracies at least formally committed themselves to trade regimes based on the principle of gains from exchange.
This is the vision that the Cohn/McMaster op-ed rejects.
The rejection adds a sinister tint to these words:
At every stop in our journey, we delivered a clear message to our friends and partners: Where our interests align, we are open to working together to solve problems and explore opportunities. We let adversaries know that we will not only take their measure, deter conflict through strength, and defend our interests and values, but also look for areas of common interest that allow us to work together. In short, those societies that share our interests will find no friend more steadfast than the United States. Those that choose to challenge our interests will encounter the firmest resolve.
First, those bold words about defending “interests and values” against adversaries sound ill in the mouth of administration officials who may owe their high offices in some degree to the clandestine assistance of a foreign adversary. So long as Russia’s attack on U.S. democracy in 2016 goes not only unpunished—but actively denied—by the Trump administration, they have no standing for this kind of robust language.
But they may attach a private meaning to that language. Trump himself and some of those who influence him pretty obviously regard the European Union, not Russia, as their most important adversary. Donald Trump has consistently refused to recognize even the existence of the EU, vainly attempting to negotiate trade agreements with individual member nations, despite their treaty obligations to each other. You can mark that attempt to Trump’s ignorance if you like, but according to German reports, Cohn himself—the former COO and president of Goldman Sachs!—tried the same gambit on the president’s trip.
But here is the truest tell. You can have friends. Or you can have people you work with only when your immediate interests align. Those are not the same thing. The Cohn/McMaster op-ed uses the word “friend”—without ever making clear who belongs to that category—but its logic is that of a nation friendless and alone. Perhaps the most terrifying thing about the Trump presidency is the way even its most worldly figures, in words composed for them by its deepest thinkers, have reimagined the United States in the image of their own chief: selfish, isolated, brutish, domineering, and driven by immediate appetites rather than ideals or even longer-term interests.
Like Trump himself, this general and this financier who speak for him know only the language of command, not of respect. They summon partners to join them "to enhance American security, promote American prosperity, and extend American influence around the world”—and never anticipate or answer the question, “Why should we British, French, Germans, Canadians, Australians, and on and on through the catalogue of your disrespected allies join that project?”
Under the slogan of restoring American greatness, they are destroying it. Promising readers that they want to “restore confidence in American leadership,” they instead threaten and bluster in ways that may persuade partners that America has ceased to be the leader they once respected—but an unpredictable and dangerous force in world affairs, itself to be contained and deterred by new coalitions of ex-friends.There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
Comment
-
Originally posted by S2 View Post"...its about as much a hollow threat as Merkl talking about self reliance when it comes to defense."
Perhaps. More likely it's about relying upon Russia not to attack as opposed to relying upon America to defend.
Nothing else would change. Most notably their current defense budget.
not sure where she is going there, but that's not German self reliance.
Comment
-
Originally posted by astralis View Postcitanon,
look at the context of it.
Merkel just won big in the state elections, but did so despite pushing for $27 billion in increased military spending over 3 years-- something that is highly unpopular among Germans (2/3 are against it), and which the German left is making political hay from. for that matter, she even told Pence just before the NATO conference that "We will do everything we can in order to fulfil this commitment."
and now Trump swoops in, loudly beating his chest, hectoring and lecturing European leaders in a way that he never did with the Saudis. he then goes on a Twitter tirade specifically threatening Germany on trade.
what exactly would a non-response from Merkel look like to German voters?
She will try to push the idea of an EU military and get France to sign on to building a next gen European fighter and other defense cooperation projects.
http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/68370
However, Merkel also knows that without American help this is all a shell game falling far short of meeting European defense needs. If Germany wants to start leading on defense both it and France will needto hit that 2% figure and more. Increase aside they have no plans to do this:
https://www.thelocal.de/20170301/thi...rown-over-time
Posturing aside then the present maneuvering is designed to increase German influence while relying on America for defense.
In fact, her calculated "outburst" shows increased confidence in US American commitment to NATO. If she was actually nervous she would be trying to assuage the US as much as possible to buy time while significantly upping defense spending going forward.Last edited by citanon; 01 Jun 17,, 00:08.
Comment
-
citanon,
In fact, her calculated "outburst" shows increased confidence in US American commitment to NATO. If she was actually nervous she would be trying to assuage the US as much as possible to buy time while significantly upping defense spending going forward.There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
Comment
-
Originally posted by astralis View Postcitanon,
i must say that it takes quite a bit of mental gymnastics to agree with me on one hand that DJT's performance at the NATO summit was a disaster, but on the other hand to arrive at the conclusion that somehow this resulted in increased German confidence in the American commitment to NATO.
Comment
-
Merkel stopped caring one bit about Trump's showmanship except where it created opportunities for her.
and said speech in which Merkel lambasts the current US administration for not being reliable...is actually a demonstration that US leadership of NATO is more reliable than ever.
if you say so...:-)There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
Comment
-
Originally posted by astralis View Postright...so this masterful plan to increase German influence and create closer European integration is Merkel making a speech...which at the same time is a shell game.
and said speech in which Merkel lambasts the current US administration for not being reliable...is actually a demonstration that US leadership of NATO is more reliable than ever.
if you say so...:-)
It's the likely internal assessment of the German government that US contribution to NATO and US shouldering the primary responsibility for defense of Europe will continue. With that as a basis, it shapes their path going forward.
You are recasting it in an angle of being good or bad leadership on the part of Donald Trump, or reliable or unreliable leadership of NATO by the US. Which, quite frankly, to me, seems like an overly simplistic picture that doesn't reflect the true underlying dynamics, and is really a sideshow to the main story.
Comment
-
Originally posted by astralis View Posthttps://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-trump/528609/
H.R. McMaster and Gary Cohn may not be the most influential people in the Trump White House. But the national-security adviser and the director of the National Economic Council are surely the White House’s most presentable faces. When they sign their names to a statement of Trumpism at its most dangerous, we are warned: The so-called adults in the room are shirking their responsibilities.
It was a good read. It was a formative book for me at the time in shaping my worldview. That being said, I read it as a 17-year old, re-read it a few times, and it's since been lost to me. I think I gave it to a relative who served in Vietnam. I don't know what I'd make of the book at the age of 33.
There's so much going on domestically though, I wasn't even aware that he was the National Security Adviser until I read this post. With the controversies swirling around Trump's administration, his appointments are getting lost in the static, and I hardly pay attention as they're most likely to be appointments that are rather short in duration.
On a somewhat different note, it seems that Trump is impressed by anyone with bling, thinking somehow he absorbs credibility on national security issues by touting this general or that general with bling. McMaster may or may not have been a good choice for the role in a normal administration, I don't really know, and I'm not casting aspersions on anyone's bling, but in Trump's mind -
1) Got bling? Check.
2) Want the appointment? Check
3) Bam, you're the new National Security Advisor.
I just happen to think Trump is as dazzled and impressed by bling as a decision-making factor in making appointments, much as he expects everyone else to be dazzled and impressed with his ten billion dollars, or however much it is.
Does anybody have a fulltext link to the WSJ editorial?Last edited by Ironduke; 01 Jun 17,, 07:40."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostI was wondering why McMaster's name seemed familiar... I bought Dereliction of Duty back in 2000 or so, along with another book contrasting counter-insurgency experiences in Vietnam against those in Malaya. I think I recommended it once on a thread on WAB some years back...
It was a good read. It was a formative book for me at the time in shaping my worldview. That being said, I read it as a 17-year old, re-read it a few times, and it's since been lost to me. I think I gave it to a relative who served in Vietnam. I don't know what I'd make of the book at the age of 33.
There's so much going on domestically though, I wasn't even aware that he was the National Security Adviser until I read this post. With the controversies swirling around Trump's administration, his appointments are getting lost in the static, and I hardly pay attention as they're most likely to be appointments that are rather short in duration.
On a somewhat different note, it seems that Trump is impressed by anyone with bling, thinking somehow he absorbs credibility on national security issues by touting this general or that general with bling. McMaster may or may not have been a good choice for the role in a normal administration, I don't really know, and I'm not casting aspersions on anyone's bling, but in Trump's mind -
1) Got bling? Check.
2) Want the appointment? Check
3) Bam, you're the new National Security Advisor.
I just happen to think Trump is as dazzled and impressed by bling as a decision-making factor in making appointments, much as he expects everyone else to be dazzled and impressed with his ten billion dollars, or however much it is.
Does anybody have a fulltext link to the WSJ editorial?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._R._McMaster
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...t_officer.html
Comment
-
I have no doubts with regards to McMaster and him being one of the foremost thinkers on counter-insurgency doctrine... just because we've primarily been engaged in conflicts in which COIN has been the primary focus of our efforts, COIN is not the definition of warfare. It is a subset. I think to use the word warfare is a bit of a stretch.
That being said, I read him when he was still a Colonel and it was a powerful book.
This though, from that Slate article:
The most famous name on the list was John Bolton, a former Bush official and neoconservative provocateur, whose hawkishness on Iran might have earned Trump’s favor but whose equal hawkishness on Russia might not have. Bolton also has an imperious manner that almost nobody likes and a walrus mustache that probably offended Trump, who is said to despise facial hair."Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ironduke View PostI have no doubts with regards to McMaster and him being one of the foremost thinkers on counter-insurgency doctrine... just because we've primarily been engaged in conflicts in which COIN has been the primary focus of our efforts, COIN is not the definition of warfare. It is a subset. I think to use the word warfare is a bit of a stretch.
Comment
-
Merkel and Li, as expected, after their talks since yesterday are now signing a nice cushy joint declaration along with the rest of the EU which reaffirms EU and Chinese commitment to the Paris Agreement while not mentioning the USA at all. Most conservative politicians in Germany consider the situation as a political strengthening of China - and e.g. Volker Kauder (Merkel's "right hand" and the CDU whip) says that without any real regret.
While politicians throughout the EU are mostly in a "we'll wait what he says" mode right now, Boris Johnson - as the only one - is trying to appeal to Trump not to withdraw. The deputy president of the European Commission has already announced that the EU would take over a leadership role in this regard if the USA fails its obligations. Apparently Merkel and Macron have made sure in the last few days that - in addition to China - Russia and India will both side with the EU on this matter.
Schulz meanwhile has announced that Europe should think about economic sanctions against the US if Trump wants to leave the Paris Agreement (note: not if he does, if he wants to). Okay, he didn't use the word "sanctions". He used "possible market distortions that need to be looked into". Probably quite in line with the original SPD plan to exploit Trump's follies, along with a five-bullet-point increased European cooperation plan also announced today.Last edited by kato; 01 Jun 17,, 12:21.
Comment
-
What does"siding with the EU” mean in this context except as a pledge to continue watching with amusement as you self-castrate your economies?
Also, if we start talking about market distortions between the US and EU, there's about $160 billion worth every year at the moment. Maybe we should also think about those.
It's pretty clear at this point that the US will not legislate into meeting the Paris pledges made by the Obama administration. Under that context, is it better to stay in or leave?
Comment
Comment