Syrian End-Game.

Posted on March 11, 2017 by jsh54

Adolf Hitler’s aggression created an alliance of Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union that brought down the Third Reich in flames. However, that “Grand Alliance” consisted of countries with very different aims united only by the German danger. As soon as victory came in sight, the allies began to fall out with one another. Their competition produced the Cold War.

Now the same thing is happening as the ISIS caliphate begins to crumble.[1] The current wars in the Middle East (the ISIS war, the Syrian civil war) have become proxy wars. Turkey has become the chief supporter of the various Sunni Arab rebel groups, like the Free Syrian Army; the Russkies and the Iranians are the supporters of the Assad regime; and the Americans are the chief supporters of the Kurds in both Iraq and Syria. Now, these disparate allies-of-convenience are beginning to pursue their interests. Their proxies are likely to pay the price.

The central dynamic in the next phase is likely to be Kurdish nationalism. The Turks hate the Kurds, and the Kurds hate the Turks. Turkey is a NATO member (if not exactly an ally), but the Americans have supplied the Kurds with a lot of support. So, at some point, the Americans are going to have to make a choice or broker a deal. Now the Kurds have begun to doubt American support. The Syrian Kurds, at least, have had some contact with the Russians.

Turkish support for the Sunni Arab rebels actually puts them on the side of the major losers in this struggle. Both the American-backed Kurds and the Russian-backed Assad regime have greater assets on the battle field. Contacts have opened between the Assad regime and the Syrian Kurds. The short-term goal of such talks might be co-operation against ISIS, but the long-term goal might be a meeting of minds about Turkey. Naturally, Turkish president Erdogan would rather cut a deal with the Assad regime he has been trying to overthrow in order to forestall an Assad-Kurd alliance. Assad’s chief aim seems to be to get control of the key western parts of Syria, where the Sunni rebels are his chief opponents.[2] The Sunni rebels—commonly called the “moderates” by President Obama—are going to pay a heavy price if this happens.

For its part, Russia is allied with Iran to support the Assad regime. Now the Iranian-controlled militias fighting in Syria have ignored Russian-sponsored local truces. Both the Russians and the Assad regime are going to have to choose whether to cut ties with Iran.

Their immediate problem is that they want to know what the Americans are going to do. In so far as Syria is concerned, the Trump administration, like the Obama administration, sees things almost entirely in military terms.[3] They want ISIS destroyed. This has produced a pause in American participation in Syrian peace talks now underway in Geneva. At the same time, the American face a dilemma: the Trump administration wants to improve relations with Russia, the Russians are allied—for the moment—with Iran, and the Trump administration is hostile to Iran (as are several of America’s regional allies).[4] The U.S. and Russia recently joined to block an attack by Turkish Sunni clients toward the ISIS stronghold in Raqqa because it would have cut across a movement by Kurds and Assad forces. Does this have any longer-term meaning?

So, who will get eastern Syria once ISIS is destroyed? The Kurds?

[1] Yaroslav Trofimov, “Battle for Raqqa Set to Shape Mideast,” WSJ, 10 March 2017; Yaroslav Trofimov, “ U.S. Disengagement Creates Hurdles for Syria Peace Talks,” WSJ, 3 March 2017.

[2] That is, Syria may be headed toward “de facto” partition.

[3] An American tradition. Look at Stephen Ambrose, Eisenhower and Berlin, 1945: The Decision to Halt at the Elbe. (1967).

[4] To make matters worse, the out-of-power Democrats want to preserve the deal with Iran brokered by John Kerry while also attacking Russia as a way of impugning President Trump.

The Deep State.

Posted on March 10, 2017 by jsh54

Anyone who paid attention to the Egyptian coup that overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood government of Mohammed Morsi, or to Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s battering of the Turkish military, civil bureaucracy, and intellectuals after a failed coup will have encountered the term “deep state.” It refers to networks of officers, bureaucrats, journalists, and businessmen who actually control government by concerted actions behind the scenes.[1] The “deep state” endures across generations, rather than being a momentary conspiracy; it recruits its members by invitation, rather than by public competition; and it is inherently un-democratic, both in its means of operation and its ability to manipulate the course of elected governments. However, Middle Eastern societies seem particularly vulnerable to conspiracy theories.

Now the term has surfaced in American politics. Breitbart News, other right-wing web-sites, and the social media feeds of many Trump supporters have been using the term for a while now. When President Trump’s supposed “grey eminence,” Steve Bannon, used the term “administrative state” in a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, the New York Times construed his words to refer to the “deep state.”[2] Newt Gingrich seemed to be playing Charlie McCarthy to Bannon’s Edgar Bergen when he said that “We’re up against a permanent bureaucratic structure defending itself and quite willing to break the law to do so.” Their aim is to undermine the Trump presidency. Some even see this conspiracy as being directed by former President Barack Obama, who announced his willingness to break the traditional silence of former presidents when the new administration threatened “our core values.”[3] (This view ignores the roll-out of HealthCare.gov.)

Former Obama administration government officials rushed to denounce the charge, albeit in circumspect language. One said that “deep state” is “a phrase we’ve used for Turkey and other countries like that, but not for the American republic.”[4] Another expressed surprise that a president would suggest that civil servants would try to undermine the government. So, that’s settled.[5] The NYT sought to normalize this as habitual Republican back-biting.

What gets lost in this unseemly mud-slinging is the pedigree of the issue. In his 1959 farewell address Dwight Eisenhower warned of a “military-industrial complex.” In the 1960s and again in the last few years, well-informed people have analyzed the power of the national security bureaucracy. Sandwiched in between these Jeremiads, the journalist-turned-open-novelist Fletcher Knebel hit the best-seller lists with “Seven Days in May” (1962), about a military coup, and “The Night of Camp David” (1965), about a crazy president. More recently, Chalmers Johnson published three books on the costs of “empire.” Democracy was chief among them.[6] Well-informed people haven’t taken the issue as a joke. Even if everyone else does.

Is there a “deep state” in America? Of course not. What seems more likely, and disturbing, is that there is a momentary open quarrel between a president and the national security professionals. Would such a quarrel precipitate the formation of a “deep state”?

[1] If this is true, then the common public discourse and action beloved of academics has little real meaning. Instead, the books on the shelves of junior army officers and school principals, and conferences on the middle floors of government ministries or dinner meetings in private homes hold the key to understanding events.

[2] Julie Hirschfeld Davis, “’Deep State’? Until Now It Was a Foreign Concept,” NYT, 7 March 2017.

[3] It is worth comparing these remarks with the boom in sales of dystopian novels to alarmed Democrats.

[4] OK, so what’s the American term? The NYT reporter did not ask.

[5] Although it doesn’t seem to have been the Russkies who leaked to the press news compromising National Security Adviser-for-a-Day Michael Flynn.

[6] See: https://waroftheworldblog.com/2015/02/13/cinay-sayers/;and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson

Memoirs of the Addams Administration 9.

Posted on March 5, 2017 by jsh54

A calmer, more coherent, and less confrontational Donald Trump offered his first address to Congress.[1] “Everything that is broken in our country can be fixed. Every problem can be solved.” He didn’t have Theodore Sorenson as his speech-writer, but that’s still a pretty up-beat statement. Everyone noted the new tone. Over half (57 percent) of Americans felt a “very positive reaction” to the new-and-improved Trump, while 21 percent felt “somewhat favorably.” That’s better than three-quarters (78 percent) of Americans. On the other hand, 22 percent took a dim view (or no view) of the speech. That suggests that the majority of Americans are at least open to Trump’s ideas, provided he doesn’t act like a moron in presenting them. It also suggests that the die-hard opposition to Trump is restricted to a MoveOn ghetto. Could this Donald Trump have been elected president? What if he had given this speech on inauguration day?

What are Donald Trump’s policies exactly? That is hard to tell and the speech did little to clear up this question. He wants a big infrastructure plan, and a border wall, a lot more money for defense and a lot less money for the snail darter, tax cuts for someone, and a replacement for the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Republicans have been desperately trying to fill in the gaps with regard to the ACA.[2] In the current version, “subsidies” to low income people to help them buy health insurance will be replaced with “tax credits” (worth more than those people pay in taxes) to purchase health insurance; it would replace the ACA’s federal subsidies to states that expand Medicaid with federal subsidies to states that create “risk-pools” to insure those with pre-existing conditions.[3] Some of the problems of Republicans arise from the self-repeal of those covered by the ACA. Many young people have not purchased insurance, regardless of the make-believe mandate. This has distorted the financial model of the exchanges. Many thinly-populated areas—red states—pay higher premiums and have less choice of provider than do densely-populated—blue state—areas. The ACA sought to entice states to expand Medicaid by offering a temporary increase of federal cost-sharing from 60 percent to 100 percent, but down-played the subsequent reduction that would leave these states freighted with additional costs. The ACA sought to eliminate product differentiation by requiring all the insurance plans to offer the same set of liberal mandated benefits.[4] In short, is the current ACA an inadequately-financed effort to by-pass the market economy? And all that implies.

At least for the moment, Trump’s astonishing victory has lifted the dead hand of Ronald Reagan off the Republican Party. For decades, Republicans have tried to our-Reagan Reagan. Now they have to think anew an act anew. Then, if Democrats don’t believe in the Trump administration, investors do believe.[5] At least for now. The much-delayed recovery of the economy from the financial crisis slump of 2008-2009 provides an underlying force. President Trump’s endorsement of tax cuts, infrastructure projects, and deregulation have all poured fuel on the underlying fire. However, trade war and tariff protection are implicit in “America First.” With 44 percent of the goods and services sold by Standard and Poor 500 companies going abroad, people are skittish. It’s still early days, so they aren’t alone.

[1] “A sunnier Trump lays out his policy goals,” The Week, 10 March 2017, p. 4.

[2] While the mainstream media (MSM) have been lambasting Republicans for trying to repeal and replace the ACA, the exchanges have been failing and premiums soaring.

[3] Just as the Obama administration found itself compelled by reality to follow some main lines of the Bush II foreign policy, the Trump administration finds itself compelled by reality to follow some main lines of the Obama domestic policy. Anyway, that’s what I think at the moment. Probably I’m wrong on both counts.

[4] “GOP divided over Obamacare repeal plan,” The Week, 10 March 2017, p. 5.

[5] “Conservatism: The Party of Reagan embraces Trump” and “Stocks: will the Trump rally last?” The Week, 10 March 2017, pp. 6, 33.

Small wars and demolition.

Posted on March 1, 2017 by jsh54

North Korea has developed nuclear weapons. Not really a problem. FedEx doesn’t pick up in North Korea and the North Koreans don’t have a delivery system (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile, ICBM). Oh, wait, they just tested an intermediate range missile. Well, that couldn’t reach the United States. So, not really a problem, yet. It could reach South Korea or Japan, however, and both are American allies.[1] So, that’s a problem.

North Korea has been “carpet sanctioned” by the United Nations (U.N.) for its nuclear program and other things.[2] Chinese support is North Korea’s only lifeline. It seems to be widely agreed that Chinese pressure could bring an end to the regime. According to President Trump, “China has control, absolute control, over North Korea.” So, why doesn’t China topple the North Korean psychocracy? It could be that North Korea isn’t any more trusting of China than it is of anyone else. Perhaps lots of Chinese agents of influence and spies within the North Korean government keep ending up dead? That could cut down the scope for action short of war.

Or, perhaps China sees North Korea as a desirable destabilizing force in the region. China, The Peoples Republic, of has been intruding aggressively into the non-state waters of the South China Sea. This program of reef-claiming, reef-enhancing, and reef-arming has put China at odds with Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Vietnam. In these alarming circumstances, North Korean aggression and the perception that China has a leash on North Korea may work to enhance China’s bargaining power. In this context, China’s Foreigners Ministry has argued that the Americans should deal directly with North Korea.[3]

Meanwhile, the United States is at war with radical Islam. In Afghanistan, the Taliban use safe-havens in Pakistan from which to wage war in their own country. According to the local American military commander, the war is a “stalemate.” A mere 8,400 American soldiers are trying to brace-up and train the Afghan army and police. The Taliban seem able to learn how to fight a war without such trainers.

In Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State has been battered into fragments. Again, a small number of American troops are serving as trainers and advisers for Syrian and Iraqi troops, and as spotters for air strikes. Still, several political problems remain on front-burners. First, ISIS will not long survive as an organized military force or a political community. What will become of the survivors as they flee the cauldron? Will they attempt to return home, there to continue the struggle?[4] Then, the defeat of ISIS is a long way from the defeat of radical Islam. What new insurgency will pop up, either immediately or in the future?

Second, much of the heavy lifting in both Syria and Iraq has been done by Kurds. Over the long-term, American support for the Kurds challenges the national integrity of Syria, Iraq, and Turkey. The Russian-backed Assad regime in Syria may be in no position—or no mood—to carry the fight to ISIS. An Iraq riven by sectarian conflicts may find itself in the same boat. That would leave Turkey—a NATO ally of the United States—as the chief opponent of Kurdish nationalism. That, in turn, will create a dilemma for American diplomacy. Will America back the Kurds[5] or the Turks? In either case, the Russians will find an opening.

[1] “America’s Military Challenges,” The Week, 3 March 2017, p. 11.

[2] That doesn’t seem to have done the trick.

[3] The sloppy murder of the half-brother of the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un in a Kuala Lumpur airport and the subsequent hasty execution of five North Korean intelligence officers may complicate matters for China.

[4] Or, alternatively, take up the rocker and thrill younger generations with their tales of daring-do?

[5] “Gratitude has a short half-life”—Thomas Harris, The Silence of the Lambs.

Memoirs of the Addams Administration 8.

Posted on February 27, 2017 by jsh54

From the New Deal through the Seventies, the “closed shop” provided a major source of union membership.[1] Union membership has declined from 20.1 percent of workers in 1983 to 10.7 percent in 2016. Now, a majority (28/50) of states are “right to work” states where compulsory membership in unions is outlawed.[2] President Trump has further undermined union sympathy by calling for heavy spending on long-overdue infrastructure projects, by promising to revise trade agreements, and by adopting a stance of “America First.” All these are things that Democrats or Republicans might have done, but did not do, in years gone by.

There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States.[3] The vast majority are Mexicans who fled their failing-state homeland for the opportunity to work in the United States. They perform many tasks—and perform them well–that other Americans do not desire to perform. To put it mildly. That reality argues for allowing the illegals to remain as legal workers, if not as candidates for citizenship. On the other hand, the obvious presence of the illegals drives a lot of Americans wild. OK, the illegals cluster in the places—farm fields in Georgia or Arizona, hardware store parking lots, landscaping businesses, the kitchens of restaurants, faculty office buildings—or at the times—early in the morning or late at night–where high-income, highly educated people would not notice them. Some native-born Americans feel that their culture is being swamped by a foreign culture. Some of them think that the laws are being flouted by Republican businessmen avid for cheap labor and by Democratic politicians—who insist upon a “path to citizenship” for the “undocumented”–avid for potential voters. Both of the latter headings play into a feeling that the system is rigged by the “elites” for their own benefit. Senator Bernie Sanders caught part of that feeling. That feeling is part of what brought Donald Trump to the White House.

The Republicans have embraced “repeal and replace” for the Affordable Care Act. Replace with what? That’s where things are getting tricky. Republicans who dare to think about the nuts and bolts favor market-based solutions. They believe that “consumers” who approach medical care as a “commodity” will be bargain-hunters.[4] That, in turn, will hold health care costs in check. How to make people into cost-conscious consumers? At the moment, an expanded system of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) is being much caressed. The HSAs allow people to divert pre-tax income to an individual fund that can be used to pay for things like deductibles and co-pays. Usually, such HSAs run with a high-deductible health insurance policy. About 30 percent of employers now offer high deductible + HSA insurance to their workers. Republicans propose to raise the current caps on annual contributions ($3,400 individual/$6,750 family) to at least the maximums set by the insurance policy for out-of-pocket and deductible costs.

Given Americans’ reluctance to save for predictable calamities like old age, it’s a little much to expect them to save for unpredictable calamities like medical problems.[5] One solution might be to make such contributions mandatory, or at least require an Opt-Out decision. Thus, even Republicans are being driven by realities toward a form of the nanny-state.

[1] See: https://waroftheworldblog.com/2015/03/02/american-union-stay-away-from-me-uh/

[2] “Issue of the week: Labor’s diminishing clout,” The Week, 3 March 2017, p. 38. In “right to work” states, employees are not required to pay union dues or belong to a union to get a job.

[3] “Deportations: Immigration crackdown begins,” The Week, 3 March 2017, p. 16.

[4] “Health insurance: Can HSAs replace Obamacare?” The Week, 3 March 2017, p. 36.

[5] Half of Americans have no retirement account.

Memoirs of the Addams Administration 7.

Posted on February 27, 2017 by jsh54

Democrats are unhappy with the outcome of the November 2016 presidential election. It is easy to understand why. With the House and the Senate already in Republican hands, winning the White House offered the only way for Democrats to check potential Republican legislation and to prevent Republican control of judicial appointments that will control the interpretation of laws for a generation. So, their fallback positions have been to allege that Trump is an authoritarian and to raise the possibility of impeachment.[1] Democrats have been quick to characterize President Trump’s behavior as “crazy.”[2]

In a recent Twitter post, President Donald Trump called the mainstream media (MSM) “the enemy of the people!” One journalist quickly analogized Trump to Hitler, Mao, and Lenin, who all used the same phrase.[3] (He left out the noted Scandinavian tyrant Henrik Ibsen, who seems to have originated the phrase.) Another journalist argued that Trump seeks a country where “there is no such thing as truth.” Senator John McCain (R-Arizona), who has eclipsed David Brooks as the Republican-Democrats-love-to-quote, said that attacking the press is “how dictatorships get started.” Picking up on Senator McCain’s line, one journalist argued that President Trump’s long-running and now-escalated criticisms of the MSM constitute “something new and potentially dangerous for our democracy.”[4] How so? Is journalism a bulwark of democracy that—like Joe Friday—is committed to placing “just the facts” before voters? Are journalists going to bend before the broken wind of criticism emerging from the White House? Is the MSM going to lose credibility in the eyes of the Americans who have been fleeing from the MSM’s print and digital formats in immense numbers for two decades? A recent Gallup Poll reported that less than one-third (32 percent) of Americans have “a great deal” or a “fair” amount of confidence in the media. This seems to be the lowest level since whenever they began tracking this issue.[5]

President Trump added Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster to his team as National Security Adviser to replace Michael Flynn. McMaster is a highly-regarded-in-some-quarters combat commander, counter-insurgency expert, strategist, and military intellectual.[6] Although the New York Times has castigated the Trump administration as “packed with radicals and amateurs,” so far as national security goes, the reality is different. McMaster fits into a larger pattern. Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson were all lauded for their achievements in their previous fields of endeavor. [7] Mattis, Kelly, Tillerson, and McMaster have all distanced themselves from policies proclaimed by President Trump.[8] One issue here is whether the settled culture of official Washington can tolerate non-traditional experts—military officers and business executives—as leaders of important agencies. A second issue is whether only non-traditional experts—military officers and business executives—can make Washington work.

[1] Impeachment would put the conventional—but extremely conservative—Vice President Mike Pence into office. I’m not sure that it would alter conditions for the better for Democrats. So, I’m not sure that they are thinking about things in a clear-headed way.

[2] “Trump: the sanity question,” The Week, 3 March 2017, p. 16. In any event, see: https://waroftheworldblog.com/2017/02/17/bug-eyed-with-fear-and-vengeance/?iframe=true&theme_preview=true

[3] At some point, an intrepid researcher is going to have to go back to figure out where the name-calling originated. Neither side seems able to achieve a degree of objectivity on the relationship. See: “The War of the Roses” (1989, dir. Danny DeVito).

[4] “The press: Are journalists ‘the enemy of the people’?’ The Week, 3 March 2017, p. 6.

[5] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 3 March 2017, p. 17.

[6] To declare a personal interest, I once heard General McMaster speak. I thought at the time—it was a juvenile response—that I would follow him into the mouth of Hell. I have not changed my position. See also: Thomas Ricks, The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today (2013) on the tribes within the army.

[7] Really, who would you rather have negotiating on behalf of the United States, the former head of a ferocious oil company or the guy in the pink tie? See: http://www.bourncreative.com/meaning-of-the-color-pink/

[8] As has Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. King Frederick the Great of Prussia once proclaimed that “I and my people have come to an agreement. They may say what they want and I may do what I want.” What if the reverse situation prevails here?

No Terrorism from Yemen.

Posted on February 24, 2017 by jsh54

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (1986- ) grew up in Kaduna, Nigeria. In the early 2000s, simmering Muslim-Christian conflicts boiled over in several destructive and deadly riots. Perhaps about this time, in his early teens, Abdulmutallab became increasingly pious in his Muslim faith. Abdulmutallab’s parents were wealthy, so he received an excellent education. In 2004-2005 he studied Arabic at the San’a Institute for the Arabic Language in San’a, Yemen.[1] At the same time, he attended lectures at Iman University.[2] While studying in Britain from 2005 to 2008, his contacts with radical Islamists came to the attention of MI-5, Britain’s internal security organization. In 2009, he obtained a visa to visit the United States. When returning from his visit to the United States, however, Abdulmuttalab was denied re-entry into Britain and his name went on a security watch list.[3]

From August to December 2009, Abdulmutallab returned to Yemen.[4] Soon, he made contact with Anwar al-Awlaki, an American renegade who played an important role in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).[5] Awlaki carefully assessed Abdulmuttalab in a series of meetings. Then he persuaded the young man to accept a “martyrdom operation” directed against the United States.[6] When Abdulmuttalab accepted the mission, Awlaki supervised his preparation. AQAP’s bomb-makers equipped Abdulmuttalab with an explosive device concealed in his underwear. Along the way, Abumuttalab shared quarters with Said Kouachi. At the end of the training, Awlaki advised his protégé to travel by way of an African country to disguise the fact that he had been in Yemen.

On 11 November 2009, the British informed the Americans of a report that an “Umar Farouk” had been in contact with Awlaki. On 19 November 2009, Abdulmutallab’s father, alarmed at strange messages from his son, contacted the American Embassy in Nigeria. He warned them about his son Umar Farouk. Abdulmuttalab’s name went on one terrorist data-base, but not on two others, including the “No Fly List.” No one noticed his existing American visa.

Abdulmuttalab did as he was told. Traveling by way of Ethiopia, Ghana, and Nigeria, he reached Amsterdam. Then he booked a flight on Northwest Airlines flight 253. By Christmas Day, 2009, the flight was over American soil, bound for Detroit. So far, so good.

Then something went amiss. The evidence is that being a martyr is a stressful business. One tends to sweat a lot while contemplating what one is about to do. Thus, the “shoe bomber” sweated a lot, soaking the soles of his shoes. He could not get the charge to ignite before he was wrestled into submission. So, too, Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab sweated through his clothes. Starting from the inside out, that meant that his underwear bore the brunt of his pre-Paradise nerves.[7] When he tried to set off the bomb, it misfired. Like the “shoe bomber,” the “underwear bomber” then succumbed to superior force.[8]

In addition to Abdulmuttalab, the plane carried 289 passengers and crew.

But no, not a single American has been killed in the United States by a terrorist coming from Yemen. Multiple lines of defense and sophisticated data bases provide rigorous vetting of potential terrorists.

[1] Much later, Said Kouachi also attended the school. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting#Ch.C3.A9rif_and_Sa.C3.AFd_Kouachi

[2] See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_University. Iman University’s founder had just been designated a terrorist by the U.S. government. Among the university’s alums is John Walker Lindh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh

[3] In neither case did the British share this information with the Americans.

[4] See: https://waroftheworldblog.com/2014/08/20/yemen-and-nomen-2/ and https://waroftheworldblog.com/2015/03/03/yemen-again/ Sorry to reference myself.

[5] See: https://waroftheworldblog.com/2014/09/16/just-like-imam-used-to-make/

[6] Scott Shane, “F.B.I. Interviews Tell of Cleric’s Role in Bomb Plot,” NYT, 23 February 2017.

[7] Perhaps it would make the most sense for the Trump administration to issue a travel ban on sweaty people? Nah, it would just lead to charges of perspiro-phobia. OK, back to the drawing board.

[8] One of those applying the force was a Dutch tourist. I was hoping he would turn out to be a Swede.

Memoirs of the Addams Administration 5.

Posted on February 14, 2017 by jsh54

Immigration occupied the spot-light. On the one hand, the Trump Administration’s ill-prepared travel ban got banned itself by a federal judge in Seattle, soon backed up by the Appellate Court of the 9^th Circuit.[1] On the other hand, the president got into an ugly spat with the prime minister of Australia. President Obama had struck a bargain with Australia to take in 1,250 refugees, and President Trump ungraciously agreed to honor the deal even as he was trying to ban immigrants from seven majority-Muslim countries. Media attention—in the United States and Australia—highlighted the president’s boorish behavior. Little noticed in the scrum was Australia’s own sweeping ban on refugees from selected countries. Refugees trying to reach Australia are intercepted at sea to prevent them from ever setting foot on Australian soil. That would allow them to apply for asylum. Instead they are diverted to “detentions centers” (i.e. prison camps) in places like Papua-New Guinea and Nauru.[2]

Far more important than these eye-catching events, however, was the proposal from two Republican senators to cut the number of “green cards” issued each year from 1 million to 500,000. Immigrants, broadly defined, create about half of new start-ups.[3]

The president issued executive orders for a review of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act regulating Wall Street, and the not-yet-implemented Fiduciary Rule.[4] Observers dispute whether Dodd-Frank offers a reasonable safeguard against the stupidity of bankers or imposes crippling burdens on American business. Possibly it does both. Worse, what if it does neither?

As for the Democrats, it seems widely agreed that they lost many former voters to Donald Trump because those voters found that the Democrats had moved too far to the left. The party’s solution for now appears to be to hold fast to Democratic loyalists. One columnist argued that they “will not tolerate any sign of accommodation” with the administration. What they want, said another, is “total resistance” to the president. The trouble is that the Republicans hold the House, the Senate, and the White House. They are poised to take control of the Supreme Court as well. The president nominated Neil Gorsuch to take the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Antonin Scalia. Democrats are calculating whether it makes sense to try to filibuster a vote on Gorsuch. What the Democrats have been able to do is to use parliamentary procedure to slow down the confirmation of Cabinet members and to stage showy demonstrations, both in the streets[5] and in the corridors-of-out-of-power. This hardly represents a long-term strategy.

The New York Times characterized the president’s fuming about the judge’s stay on his immigration order as an assault on “the most dependable check on his power.” A columnist in the Washington Post situated the president’s continuing denunciations of journalists within his larger effort to weaken anyone or anything that “place serious, meaningful limits on his power.” Another lampooned “Trump’s bug-eyed retreat into fear and vengeance.”[6] Trump’s not alone.

Largely unremarked were signs that Trump may have begun to learn something. Chief-of-staff Reince Priebus may be winning his power struggle with Chief Strategist Steve Bannon. The president has moderated some diplomatic positions as well.[7] Still, “many’s the slip….”

[1] See: https://waroftheworldblog.com/2017/02/07/the-selective-immigration-pause/

[2] “How they see us: Australia stands up to Trump,” The Week, 17 February 2017, p. 15.

[3] “Boring but important,” The Week, 17 February 2017, p. 6; “Noted,” The Week, 17 February 2017, p. 16.

[4] “Trump takes aim at Dodd-Frank,” The Week, 17 February 2017, p. 5.

[5] “Rowdy constituents,” The Week, 17 February 2017, p. 7

[6] “Travel ban challenged in court,” The Week, 17 February 2017, p. 4; “Democrats: Should they become the ‘party of no’?” The Week, 17 February 2017, p. 6.

[7] “The White House: An internal power struggle,” The Week, 17 February 2017, p. 16.

waroftheworldblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Category Archives: Trump administration