Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Rob Long is off this week, Law Talk’s John Yoo is sitting in. We’ve got Henry Olsen (he of The Horse Race podcast right here on this network) to chat about Super Duper Tuesday, Joementum!, and whether we’ve seen the last of the Socialist. Then, our friend and advisor Dr. George Savage stops by the tell us all about the Corona Virus — who’s got it, who doesn’t, what we can do about it and what we can’t. Yes, we’re sick of this topic too. Also, Chuck Schumer says something dumb, why are so many old white guys running for higher office, are some people are too damn sensitive, and another edition of What Are You Watching?
Music from this week’s show: My Sharona by The Knack
Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
Mollie has written a good counter to the idea that Democrats learned from the 2016 Republicans by forcing out candidates early. She points out that Republicans went through the fight and came out winning the general. The Democrats might be suppressing a discussion they need to be having.
They can still have the fight at the next debate in Arizona. But only if Bernie wants it — he didn’t four years ago with Hillary’s obvious problems with her classified emails and the truth in general, because he thought Democrats would turn on him if he used the same attack points Trump and other GOPers were already using. My guess is Sanders again opts not to go there on Biden’s memory problems, though some of his backers have been literally screaming since Super Tuesday for him to do it.
They may very well need to have the discussion, but I’m not sure they could actually have it reasonably, nor could they actually follow/abide by what the conclusions might be if they did have it.
There were also some voter fraud cases that needed Bernie to be party to since he was the one with standing but he refused to sign on. I don’t think he will take it to Biden either. He could change though.
Seems like he’ll HAVE TO go after Biden, if he wants to WIN.
But if he doesn’t, and Biden is the nominee, it’s still open for Trump to use that stuff, and WIN. Although it shouldn’t really be necessary, if people have brains just saying “Biden is a Democrat” should be enough for a landslide.
It will be interesting to see if the Bernie Bros’ unswerving loyalty to their guy is still in place if he backs off going after Biden as he did going after Hillary four years ago. Some of them were puzzled at why he was so passive on the debate state when asked about the email, but they never lowered their support for him because Sanders 2016 was seen as an insurgency candidacy that the DNC tried successfully to scuttle.
This time, they thought they were the unquestioned and unassailable front-runners until seven days ago, and again see the DNC as stacking the deck against Bernie. If they’re willing to get outrageously outraged about Sanders having the nomination stolen from him by a guy they themselves are branding as senile, and Bernie goes on the debate state and essentially says, “I don’t want to talk about vice-president Biden’s condition when we have billionaires getting rich and everyone else getting poorer,” as he did with Hillary, his hardcore support could crater, as the Bros decide Bernie’s all-talk and no action.
Just like at the commune, where they kicked Bernie out because he wouldn’t ever DO anything, like work.
Many Americans think that way, and I can empathize. However, let’s not take the opinions of a few South Koreans and extrapolate too far. (Democracy can be messy. In a similar vein, I hope that foreigners don’t take the current popularity of Bernie Sanders among some Democrats and think that America is going socialist.) The average American may not perceive it, but the ROK government recognizes the support we provide based on the mutual defense treaty and our longstanding ties. They are one of our closest allies in the Far East, having sent troops to fight alongside us in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. To pull out unilaterally would thrill the leaders of China, Russia and every other country against us, since it would undercut one of our treaty partners, showing weakness and demonstrating that we don’t support our allies. We would also lose our sole presence on the Asian continent, something that limits North Korean and Chinese actions in the region. The South Korean government accepted the economic impact of accepting a THAAD anti-ballistic missile defense system, which contributes to American security. They also pay a significant chunk of the costs of maintaining the bases hosting our troops and even provide a small cadre of military translators to facilitate communications for CFC and its supporting forces.
While military alliances are essential, there needs to be more than just a piece of paper for an alliance to be successful. Our overseas military presence provides a constant form of engagement on many levels, within the hosting country and throughout each region. Similar to Japan and Europe, having military forces in the ROK helps to shape their military doctrines so that the forces can operate together effectively. It also leads to regular training opportunities where they practice the doctrines and keep up with new doctrines that come with changing technologies. These may seem like small matters, but they strengthen ties beyond just the commitment for mutual defense—foreign militaries get used to operating with ours and see crises from our perspective. Exposure to the modern weapon systems that we use fosters a desire to modernize their own military, which not only strengthens our allies, but often leads to sales of US military equipment that reinforces our interoperability and keeps them aligned with us. It’s a virtuous cycle, one that results in more partner countries able to respond effectively to crises in other parts of the world.
Continued in next post.
Continued from previous post.
One example of the effectiveness of shared doctrines and training is demonstrated by the multinational naval operations conducted in the Indian Ocean since 2002. Called Combined Task Forces 150, 151, and 152, they conduct operations supporting the international war on terror, anti-piracy, and counter-proliferation efforts. US efforts to improve interoperability with foreign navies have allowed these forces to be commanded by officers from the different participating nations, something that would be inconceivable were there no interoperability. This interoperability isn’t just with the US, it’s also with each other. These operations probably don’t get much attention in the US media, but they demonstrate that our partner nations also value this interoperability. Although they aren’t my area of expertise, I’m confident that similar interoperability has been demonstrated by ground and air forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For anyone who doesn’t value having foreign militaries be interoperable with our military, let me provide an analogy involving American football. Which is more interesting, the Superbowl or the Pro-Bowl? Put aside the fact that the two games are for entirely different purposes. The players on the two teams going to the Superbowl have trained together for a year to prepare for the big game, while the Pro-Bowl involves talented players who haven’t trained together much. Most of the recent Pro-Bowl games have been high-scoring events since the defenders haven’t trained together to do the difficult task of stopping the opposing offense. In contrast, many recent Superbowls have been closely fought exciting games. The analogy isn’t a good one, but hopefully it’ll help you understand how important it is to regularly train together.
Ultimately, maintaining a small presence in foreign locations isn’t a significant imposition, and the close engagement we have with those militaries improves the shared interoperability. Without this, we would have to spend more for a larger military, much more than we pay now to maintain our troops in Europe, Japan, and the ROK. Having troops overseas in nations at peace shows that we’re serious about supporting them, and helps ensure that our two countries remain allied. Although we operate everywhere, our military isn’t big enough to police the world. Having allies across the globe, with militaries that have trained and are interoperable with ours, means we don’t need to possess a bigger military. Having troops overseas also limits the freedom of maneuver of our opponents, contributing to the lack of major wars since World War II. Having forces in Korea isn’t an anachronism from the 1950s. While South Korea’s economy is much bigger than North Korea’s and its military is much more capable, North Korea isn’t the only one constrained by the US presence, China and Russia are also impacted. Leaving the ROK would be more damaging to American national interests than saving the relatively small amount it costs to keep people there.
And, as with many such “cost-saving” measures, the “savings” would only be short-term, whereas the costs might extend for decades, and that’s just in money, not even counting lives.
Why is the Post Of The Week no longer mentioned in the Show Notes, and sometimes it seems to take almost a week for the new one to show up in the “side bar?”
Thank you for posting that. It doesn’t seem very debatable, does it?
Dr. Savage more or less says that of course it would be a good idea to stop the global economy for a month or two to try to contain a virus like the Covid-19 virus.
But, stopping the global economy for a month or two will cost lives (people don’t get food, medicine, equipment, information, etc., and people at the margins of economic survival will fall off the edge). Stopping the global economy is not the cost-free alternative that Dr. Savage seems to assume. The the cost of those deaths and suffering (which is very hard to determine) needs to be balanced against the also difficult to determine deaths and suffering of the virus itself.
Why do I get the feeling that epidemiologists the world over are secretly rejoicing, saying to themselves “YES, this is how people and governments are supposed to react to every virus outbreak”. Some might see it as their job to scare the hell out of everyone.
I’m in the cyber-security business myself (23 years) and I’ve been frustrated by people’s lack of concern for cyber virus outbreaks. So I think I know how they feel, at least a little.
The advantages provided by most of our overseas military forces are invisible to most Americans. Even military personnel, a lot of whom serve overseas at some point in their career, aren’t in the right jobs or don’t spend enough time to gain a very good appreciation of what our presence overseas means. People on the radical left think that it’s all about America continuing to be an imperialist nation, although I don’t know of any facts that support this argument. Others who are frustrated with the federal budget deficit and our continued involvement with overseas wars and operations think that we should pull back forces overseas and end all foreign entanglements. This ignores the fact that our forces stationed in countries at peace are there with the agreement of that nation, and many times there’s a peace treaty between the US and them. I wonder how many people realize that the continuing trouble zone of Afghanistan has seen far fewer soldiers killed and wounded over the last several years than occur in cities like Chicago. We shouldn’t fall for extortion, as was attempted by the Philippines in the late-80s, which is partly what led us to withdraw in 1991. Now Duterte is stating his desire to end the Visiting Forces Agreement treaty with the US, but I think Duterte is using a Trump-style tactic to strengthen his negotiating position vis-a-vis the US and China.
If we want to cede leadership of the world to the PRC, withdrawing from our allies would be an effective way to help it along.
@Tedley, thank you for your thoughtful response, but I disagree on several levels. First, I think you are minimizing the level of frustration with the status quo of the South Korean people – from information I’ve been reading, it’s not like 15% of the public being Bernie Bros in America, it’s more like the overwhelming sentiment of anyone under retirement age. I wonder if you can refer me to any polling of the Korean public that supports our staying in the country. Second, we can no longer afford to be the pater familias and pick up the check for all our allies solely for nostalgic ideas of grandeur – let the Chinese police the sea lanes from the Mideast and the Russians try to civilize Syria and Turkey for a generation. We are going to be forced in the near future to adopt a national health program, which will demand a radical restructuring of our funding priorities away from military spending. I think we should get ahead of that and say it’s time for the training wheels to come off in places where we have accomplished our mission – Korea and Okinawa would be the first places I would choose, NATO outside of the Baltics and Poland second. I think isolationism still has a deep hold on a lot of people in this country, even if it’s dormant. I think going back to the sentiments of Washington’s farewell address would be a lot more popular than most people think.
Global trade depends on the US military.
@ejhill Is that Tulsi Gabbard in Bernie’s left armpit? Or above his left bicep?
Agreed. Roberts seems to be so concerned that the Court might appear to be reacting to political pressure, that he . . . reacts to all political pressures. Hmmm…
A massive, multi-billion dollar, multi-year effort in Afghanistan, and a massive, multi-billion dollar, multi-year effort in Iraq – to be fair, those are some pretty sizable “grains”. I think that most people separate these, even if they often can’t keep track of which one they think is the good war and which one is the bad war. ;-)
Well I meant that they’re all part of the larger “war on terror” which arguably began with 9/11, and it is also arguable that the Iraq War “grain” wouldn’t have happened if 9/11 hadn’t… “upped the ante”… in terms of risk, etc. Especially with Saddam still working on chemical and nuclear mischief. Once possible threats to US soil became 100% credible, it was no longer reasonable to leave Saddam/Iraq to their own (possibly nuclear) devices. So in that sense, I don’t think Iraq was the “war of choice” that some people claim.
The vision and driving tests were held on the same day…My night vision is apparently bad, but I don’t drive anyway, and I likewise restrict my thoughts about papal authority to the daylight hours…The virus has prompted the cancellation of masses throughout Japan until mid-March. I think of Dante, who consigned more than one pope to l’Inferno and who then had the good fortune of dying before the Black Plague–though perhaps of malaria. “Chronological inequality” is something not even Bernie Sanders can do anything about…
I remember South Korea when it was emerging from Third-World poverty. There were a lot of poor people, a tiny number of rich people, and too few people in-between. Then a genuine middle-class arose…Some years ago I went back to the city where I once lived, together with an old friend, and dining in a familiar restaurant. At the table next to us sat a group of men in shirt sleeves, sporting fine watches and enjoying good Korean food. They chatted amiably with us, no doubt amused that we could speak Korean but nonetheless most friendly and polite. Then their wives arrived, and they focused on their own group…I thought how life had changed: it seemed as though we were in Italy or France.
South Korea is even more affluent now, and that means that one can afford idiocy as well as smartphones…But there are many Koreans who deeply resent trendy pseudo-leftist nationalism and are passionate in their gratitude to America, which, for all its faults, is defending their freedom. Living in Japan, so am I!
Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are not boomers – they are from the silent generation.
For some reason, I keep thinking of young Kevin Bacon in Animal House, yelling “All is well! All is well!” just before he is trampled by the mob.
I’m guessing that in spite of the threats Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will vote to uphold the Louisiana law, but Roberts will once again side with the liberal elites so the law is struck down. In this way the Court can pretend to resist Chuck Schumer‘s threats even as it bows to them.
When Roberts was presiding over the Senate trial of Donald Trump, you will note, he sided with the liberals on the issue of publicly revealing the name of the fake “whistleblower”.
Ooh! I don’t like the sound of that “cancellation of masses”.
Things will just start randomly floating about!
P.S.: My apologies. Some channel is rebroadcasting Monty Python’s Flying Circus and I’ve been watching it.
Then you should know that it’s an ALMOST fanatical devotion to the Pope! :-)
Dear FST, I don’t recall advocating on behalf of shutting down the global economy.
I do believe in risk-based public health measures to contain the spread of the new coronavirus, occasioned by the general lack of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and the disproportionate effect on the elderly. These include data-driven social distancing (i.e., canceling certain mass gatherings like international medical conferences) and instructions that individuals self-quarantine in the event of symptoms.
Shutting down colleges, as just happened with Stanford, is unwarranted. SARS-CoV-2 has very little effect on the young, and closing school sends people into motion around the country, which is unhelpful. In addition, panic buying of medical supplies, equally fearful equity selling, and refusal to travel on vacation or business all strike me as overreactions to the data.
This Council on Foreign Relations and Asan Institute 2019 Issue report provides a fairly comprehensive view of the statistics showing a majority of South Koreans, across the age spectrum, support the presence of US troops and trust US Forces Korea.
This Asan Institute 2018 Special Forum report shows that South Koreans have favorable opinions of the US and strongly support the US-ROK alliance, separating their opinion of Trump from favorable opinions of the US.
When you see negative foreign opinions of America reported in the mainstream media, that’s not a good place to look for what they really think. With a Republican as president, the American mainstream media are looking for negative things to report, and they aren’t above shaping their reporting to match their mindset. Leftist and liberal readers want information that reinforces their opinion that the world hates America when Republicans are in charge. And how are the people of foreign countries being informed about what’s going on in America? Foreign news reporting on American political matters mostly comes from translations of those very same American mainstream media sites, especially the New York Times and Washington Post, which are not known for characterizing Republicans in a positive light. This is even more evident due to the TDS that the employees of the mainstream media are suffering now.