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.
Syria, Russia, and Trump
I’m not sure how much news about Aleppo is filtering through the non-stop election coverage. Although my sense was that Gary Johnson did, indeed, know what Aleppo was (and just flubbed the question through some kind of inattention), that kind of inattention is only possible if the subject just isn’t something you think about all that much.
I don’t know whether he’s typical of American voters. It’s not something the next president will be able to ignore, though, that’s for sure. Aleppo’s now a hellscape reminiscent of the Battle of Stalingrad. Even by the horrifying standards of the Syrian war, the past week’s events Aleppo represent a new level of depravity. Russian and Syrian government airstrikes killed more than 300 people, most of them civilians and many of them children; more than 250,000 civilians are trapped. They’re under attack by the Syrian military and by thousands of foreign militiamen commanded by Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Hezbollah fighters, and Russian ground troops; and they’re under bombardment by heavy Russian and Syrian air power — the most sustained and intense bombardment since the beginning of the war. A genuine Axis of Evil, if anything ever was, has emerged from this. Most of the civilians are, according to the Violations Documentation Center in Syria, being killed by Russians. I don’t know how reliable they are, so take this with the usual caveats:
Meanwhile, Putin has formally resurrected the KGB itself:
According to the Russian daily Kommersant, a major new reshuffle of Russia’s security agencies is under way that will unite the FSB (the main successor agency to the KGB) with Russia’s foreign intelligence service into a new super-agency called the Ministry of State Security — a report that, significantly, wasn’t denied by the Kremlin or the FSB itself.
The new agency, which revives the name of Stalin’s secret police between 1943 and 1953, will be as large and powerful as the old Soviet KGB, employing as many as 250,000 people.
The creation of the new Ministry of State Security represents a “victory for the party of the Chekists,” said Moscow security analyst Tatyana Stanovaya, referring to the first Bolshevik secret police. The important difference is that, at its core, the reshuffle marks Putin’s asserting his own personal authority over Russia’s security apparatus. …
“On the night of September 18 to 19 … the country went from authoritarian to totalitarian,” wrote former liberal Duma deputy Gennady Gudkov on his Facebook page.
And the Ukrainian military is reporting the heaviest day of fighting since the latest attempt at a ceasefire came into effect on September 15.
Richard Cohen at the Washington Post, not exactly known as a Trump booster, is absolutely scathing about the Administration’s role in this:
This is not Kerry’s failure. It is Obama’s. He takes overweening pride in being the anti-George W. Bush. Obama is the president who did not get us into any nonessential wars of the Iraq variety. The consequences for Syria have been dire — perhaps 500,000 dead, 7 million internal refugees, with millions more surging toward Europe like a tsunami of the desperate.
European politics has been upended — Germany’s Angela Merkel is in trouble, Britain has bolted from the European Union, and Hungary and Poland are embracing their shameful pasts — but there is yet another casualty of this war, the once-universal perception that the United States would never abide the slaughter of innocents on this scale. Yet, we have. Obama has proclaimed doing nothing as doing something — lives saved, a quagmire avoided. But doing nothing is not nothing. It is a policy of its own, in this case allowing the creation of a true axis of evil: a gleeful, high-kicking chorus line of Russia, Iran and Bashar al-Assad’s Syria. They stomp on everything in their path.
Aleppo then is like Guernica, a place of carnage. It’s also a symbol of American weakness. The same Putin who mucks around in Syria has filched U.S. emails and barged into the U.S. election. He has kept Crimea and a hunk of Ukraine and may decide tomorrow that the Baltics, once Soviet, need liberating from liberation. He long ago sized up Obama: all brain, no muscle.
All over the world, U.S. power is dismissed. The Philippine president, a volcanic vulgarian, called the president a “son of a whore” and, instead of doing an update of sending in the fleet, Obama canceled a meeting. China constructs synthetic islands in the Pacific Ocean, claiming shipping lanes that no one should own, and every once in a while a U.S. warship cruises close — but not too close. We pretend to have made a point. The Chinese wave and continue building. The North Koreans are developing a nuclear missile to reach Rodeo Drive, and God only knows what the Iranians are up to deep in their tunnels.
Does all this stem from Uncle Sam’s bended knee in Syria? Who knows? But U.S. reluctance to act has almost certainly given others resolve.
A question for those of you who plan to vote for Donald Trump. Your logic (I assume) is that Hillary Clinton is associated with Obama’s disastrous foreign policy, and should pay the price for this at the ballot box. If this were a normal election, who could disagree? But don’t you think that it isn’t a normal election? Unlike hapless Gary Johnson, Donald Trump almost certainly has no idea what Aleppo is, and he’s shown no desire or ability to learn. You saw it: He arrived at the debate as unprepared to discuss foreign policy as he was at the start of his campaign. And to the extent he has any coherent policy, it’s explicitly to make the Obama Administration’s foreign policy look interventionist by comparison.
Vladimir Putin not only supports Trump, but is almost certainly actively interfering with an American election with the aim of ushering him into office. Trump, as we saw in the debate, either doesn’t know this, or denies it, or doesn’t even understand what the relevant words mean:
As far as the cyber, I agree to parts of what Secretary Clinton said. We should be better than anybody else, and perhaps we’re not. I don’t think anybody knows it was Russia that broke into the DNC. She’s saying Russia, Russia, Russia, but I don’t — maybe it was. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?
You don’t know who broke in to DNC.
But what did we learn with DNC? We learned that Bernie Sanders was taken advantage of by your people, by Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Look what happened to her. But Bernie Sanders was taken advantage of. That’s what we learned.
Now, whether that was Russia, whether that was China, whether it was another country, we don’t know, because the truth is, under President Obama we’ve lost control of things that we used to have control over.
We came in with the Internet, we came up with the Internet, and I think Secretary Clinton and myself would agree very much, when you look at what [the Islamic State] is doing with the Internet, they’re beating us at our own game. ISIS.
So we have to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is — it is a huge problem. I have a son. He’s 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it’s unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it’s hardly doable.
Did that garbled speech make Trump-supporters here hesitate at all? “I have a son. He’s 10 years old. He has computers?” We all know elderly, disoriented people who talk like that. In my experience people who talk like that can’t understand these things — it’s not that they don’t want to, it’s that they don’t have the cognitive ability. How could Donald Trump possibly understand what people tell him about Russia and Syria, even if he did surround himself with “the best” advisors?
Do you see any sign that “the best” advisors are helping him to understand what he’d confront from his first minute in office? If so, what sign do you see that I don’t?
Published in General
Claire,
First, Richard Cohen has Obama exactly. Doing nothing is a policy choice and Obama is responsible for making that policy choice and all of the consequences thereof.
How, Claire, can you possibly suggest this. Trump’s goofy demeanor belies the fact that his analysis of Obama-Clinton-Kerry is on target. Remember you are talking about the woman who put the business of the Secretary of State on a private server with less security than your gmail account. This is the woman who claims that she bumped her head and can’t remember how classified documents are handled. That’s why she wasn’t aware she was sending and receiving top-secret information on her unsecured-unauthorized email account.
I get it that you don’t like Trump. Guess what, I don’t particularly care for Trump either. However, at this point, he is just what the Doctor ordered to snap us out of Obamism. It is space cadet Hillary and her genderless sycophants that should give you pause.
Regards,
Jim
A question for you, Claire. Do you plan to vote for Hillary Clinton? Wouldn’t it be fair to ask you to make the case for her, just as you’re asking us to justify our votes for Trump?
And, as a favor, I’m having trouble remembering the foreign policy part of the debate. The part you quoted was the “cyber security” question. I also remember the “tax returns” question, the
racist“birther” question, the “temperament” question… What were Holt’s questions related to foreign policy? I lost them in the muddle somewhere.How about, “seek treatment.”
Note:
Personal attack.That’s because “Libertarian” is just a pretentious way of saying “Fool.”The United States is not responsible for either the fate or the conduct of billions of foreigners.
Period.
Better analogy: some stupid adults are in their own home doing stupid xrazy [coc] and the only reason I know about it is because someone at their home is taking pictures and video and posting them on the internet. There are a couple adults who don’t like it but haven’t worked out how badly they want to get rid of the problem.
It isn’t my job to barge in and fix it for them. If they asked my advice, I may give them some, probably involving duck tape and zip ties.
No one asked, but I remain completely mystified as to just why I should care so much about Syria.
During the Iraq War, when Assad was helping kill American soldiers in Iraq, the US government saw no need at all to seek the overthrow of that regime. Ditto when an earlier Assad helped wreck US policy in Lebanon.
Yet now, somehow, for some reason, Syria is the new Munich.
Hogwash. The US managed just fine for the entire Cold War with Syria as a Soviet client state. We will manage just fine after Assad and his Russian pals destroy Al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria- or if they don’t.
Syria is not a problem for the United States, at all.
I’m genuinely torn between voting for her and voting for Evan McMullin.
I find it insulting to my intelligence when people make an affirmative case for Hillary to me. I am certain what’s happening in their minds is that Trump scares them witless, and through a process of cognitive dissonance they’ve convinced themselves to ignore or minimize Hillary’s faults. I don’t have an extensive “case for Clinton,” but I believe Trump’s victory would immediately trigger global instability of a kind that would dwarf what we’re seeing now, and we’re not prepared for it — not prepared militarily, not prepared morally, not prepared economically. Whatever Americans think, the rest of the world sees Trump as Putin’s candidate (Putin included) and a sign that the US has given up in exhaustion and retreated to a posture of “screw everyone.” They’re not wrong to perceive this, as some of the comments on this thread suggest. I believe his election would give rise to a free-for-all on every contested border in the world — the impact of the message “America’s really gone” would be hugely destabilizing. It would be like doubling down on the past eight years overnight. I think Clinton’s election would, at least, buy us time. I have no confidence in her ability to do anything more than make people around the world think that perhaps we do stand by our alliances, but that’s better than, “We certainly don’t.” She’d be lousy for the economy. Lousy for the Supreme Court. (Although I think people who believe Trump can be trusted on that are kidding themselves.) But I believe Trump’s victory would mean the end of what remains of US power and influence, overnight.
It’s so ugly to wish for this, but I would so prefer either vice-presidential candidate that if I could be persuaded that stories of either candidate’s very serious ill health were more than rumor, it might persuade me to vote for him or her. Likewise, if I felt confident that Congress would immediately impeach one or the other — that could influence my vote in his or her favor. As ugly as these thoughts are, I know I’m not the only one thinking them.
I was disappointed, but not surprised, that he asked no questions about it.
Donald Trump says he wants to rebuild the military. Hillary Clinton is going to solve all our problems by
bilkingtaxing the rich.Donald Trump at least went to a military academy for high school, and would seem to respect men and women who wear the uniform. He also likes to win.
Hillary Clinton has a long history of contempt and neglect, if not maltreatment, of people who serve. She regards them with no more esteem than she does the front steps into the White House — just a means to elevate her to power and keep her there.
I don’t care what she knows about foreign affairs. She is a threat to the individual lives and well-being of Americans. But, I’ll let Thomas Sowell say it for me:
Do you believe that the current President is an incompetent fool, or do you think that he is deliberately engaging in a strategy to diminish and undermine the role and status of the United States and its unique and Western values in the world and at home? (Hint: “Both of these things” is one acceptable answer to this question).
Of course she “knows what she is doing.” I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic, or that, like many, you just think I’m a dunderhead
And merely commenting that someone is self-aware enough to be engaging in deliberately destructive acts does not constitute approbation or endorsement of those acts, or support of that person. Sometimes, quite the reverse.
In answer to your first question, yes I believe it is possible that the President is an incompetent fool and is trying to diminish the role and status of the US. As an aside I do not think you are a dunderhead.
What is it that Clinton was trying to accomplish. She was very vocal in pushing Obama to bomb in Libya. She was in charge of what happened after the military action. Obama himself lists post bombing Libya as his greatest regret.
If she knew exactly what she was doing in Libya, what was it?
Consider the length of the Battle of Stalingrad. Now consider how much damage has been done to Aleppo in less than a week. 250,000 people are trapped and under siege, of whom 100,000 are children. We’re looking at something much closer to Stalingrad, in enormity, than other postwar civil conflicts. Here’s new drone footage.
Trump is not without foreign policy advisors, although anyone associated with his campaign has been attacked vigorously.
Walid Phares, LLM, PhD – Senior Fellow of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies
James Woolsey, LLB – Former Director of CIA and Chancellor at The Institute of World Politics
Carter Page, BS – fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations
Joseph Schmitz, J.D. – former inspector general of the US DoD
Lt. Gen. Joseph Kellogg, MA – former director of command, control, communications and computers for the Joint Chiefs of Staff
George Papadopoulos, MA – Center for International Energy and Natural Resources Law and Security at the London Center of International Law Practice and the Hudson Institute
Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, MA – former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and chair of the Military Intelligence Board
165 flag officers:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/flag-officers-endorse-donald-j.-trump-for-president
There are other advisors, i.e. Stephen Miller
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-opposes-president-obama-plan-to-surrender-american-internet
Excellent point. Supposedly Trump is the candidate who will bring about war, everywhere, all at once- even though he declines to endorse US meddling in Syria- yet Hillary has already been complicit in one pointless intervention that reduced Libya to bloody chaos.
Why should I prefer that to Trump’s oft-stated restraint about foreign entanglements?
Claire,
Frank Gaffney on Obama’s Attempt to Slip Irreversible Internet Surrender Under the Radar: ‘We’ve Got Three Days to Fix This’
Again, goofy Trump is on the right side of this issue. Where is the wonderful Hillary or the oh so amazing Evan McMullin on this? Do they take the Obama way out and do nothing. Just throw control of the Net away. Let the UN run it. They are such great stewards of everything???!!!!
Regards,
Jim
I’m not torn. I can’t vote for Clinton. I don’t want her to have any sort of mandate at all in office. However, I can’t vote for Trump either.
People on this site have argued if they were to take McMullin seriously as being viable–which I understand is putting faith in fairy dust in this system–what are his qualifications?
Well, he does understand what it’s like to serve. That makes him much more qualified than any of the other candidates per the topics of your article… to address the concerns you have raised. He is the most versed on the stage in the actual impacts on the ground of US foreign policy.
2010 – “President Obama scrapped Bush-era plans to build a major defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic.”
US media – Whatever. I bet those war-mongering neocons aren’t going to like this.
2016 – “Russia is Reportedly Set to Release Clinton’s Intercepted Emails”
US Media – Oh my God!!! Putin is a monster!!!! He must be stopped!!!!
Hmmmm. Let’s discuss.
I recall being told by a Chaldean that his Christian family in Iraq had been ethnically cleansed from their homes, while the US army was engaged in active combat during the war. I remember how many people were murdered by the communists after we left SE Asia, including most of the family of a former refugee I briefly worked with, long ago. I even recall the outrage over Darfur, compared to the lack of outrage over the endless attacks on the Christians of South Sudan.
No one in the US government seemed to worry about children in those cases- or the Christian children murdered by islamists more recently, or the Yazidis at all.
Nope, Syria we must worry about Syria.
Because- Munich?
Not buying it. At all. Let Aleppo enjoy its fate.
Personal attack against who?
Gary Johnson?
No, we are not. See Hue, Seoul, Pyongyang, Fallujah, etc. War sucks. It sucks a lot. Instead of beating the crap out of Afghanistan, pour encourager les autres, and leaving. We have nearly bankrupted this country and caused huge instability in the region by our attempt to remake middle eastern countries in our own image, but without the cultural foundations to support them. And what, exactly, are we supposed to do? Who do you want us to kill?
In the absence of a working time machine, I’m at a loss as to what the next US President could do to help the unfortunates of Aleppo.
A comparison to Yemen is perhaps worth making. There, it’s our allies the Saudis that are bombing hospitals and killing civilians. They obviously are not our ideal partner, but in Syria I don’t think there’s anyone we could work with that even rises to Saudi standards of trustworthiness and care for human life. With no local partner, any theoretical intervention looks like a far greater challenge–like a third party coming in to separate the Soviets and Germans at Stalingrad.
And they are about to – in about 4 months.
Neither Roosevelt (FD) nor Lincoln were combat vets, but both were brilliant war presidents. Kennedy and Kerry were both combat vets and one was, and the other would have been, a miserable president. So I’m not sure combat vets have a lock on appropriate leadership qualities.
As I said, FDR was at least the Secretary of the Navy, so he had some engagement with military culture. Lincoln did serve in the militia as a captain during the Black Hawk War, though he said something like the only blood he spilled was because of the mosquitos….
I don’t think one has to come from a military background to be a good leader, but when foreign policy is a primary focus, I think it helps. A lot.
Clinton’s lies about being shot at when a plane lands, as well as her grave sins with real consequence in Libya, and Trump’s brags about dodging STDs as his personal Vietnam are not inspiring when you’re asking families to serve.
As for Richard Cohen, I have enough bile and curses for that guy that I could fill up a page about it. I’ll just end with this: his shots at Poland and Hungary are disgraceful, and he’s basically condemning them for asserting their sovereignty in the face of an ever-growing EU bureaucracy that wants to eat individual European nations alive and meld them into the Great Brussels Collective. There’s something Cohen can go do with himself, and it rhymes with “truck”.
Entirely fair points; I think what I meant is that in my experience, the qualities of gravitas and respect for what these decisions really mean seem to be more often found among combat vets; I may in truth be confusing men of my grandfather’s generation (many of whom were veterans) with men and women of ours.
The problem with Ms. Berlinski’s analysis is that Hillary Clinton is the one who didn’t understand cybersecurity and seriously jeopardized American national security with her home brew server. She skipped her cybersecurity briefings. She doesn’t give a fig about cybersecurity except her own, and she’s cavalier about that, as they say, she behaved like a heedless parvenu. And Hillary Clinton is the one who advanced policies that gave rise to ISIS, and created chaos in Libya, and gave Iran a path to the bomb, sooner rather than later, and turned Putin loose on the Crimea and Ukraine, and got him salivating over the Baltic States. The “pivot to Asia” did not happen.
The characterization of the Philippine President as a volcanic vulgarian reveals a profound ignorance of the Philippines, where he is enormously popular because he promised to curtail the drug trade and it’s associated violence, and he is making great progress in that. HE lives as an ordinary citizen, refuses to live in the presidential palace, eats on the streets with the locals, and donates contributions to public causes. He has something like 80 percent support. So when Obama says he is going to call him on the carpet for his methods, which the Philippine people overwhelmingly support, and he tells Obama to put it where the sun doesn’t shine, he only increases his support among his citizens. And Obama looks the out of touch and ignorant fool.
Any discussion of Syria, or any part of the middle east, which does not contain the words Sunni and Shia is useless.
Russia is behaving badly. True.
We should stand up to them. Maybe, but let’s accept for the sake of argument.
Where should we stand up to them?
Syria? Where as far as I can tell there is no organized force on the ground that shares our values? So we can go in and kill people, but probably not much else.
Or perhaps Ukraine? Where the people fighting Russia are relatively liberal with more or less an appreciation for Western values? And where we could actually support the legal government. And where success would greatly support a number of allies in the immediate neighborhood. And where we don’t actually have to do any killing ourselves – the Ukrainians are happy to do it themselves. We can just arm and train them.
Maybe our European allies would even help.
The sniveling eurotrash and their social scientist prophets can rot in their own sewage.