Foreign Policy

[Irish YJ]

TIL this is weaksauce.

Show me where the others will commit for long term occupation, not just temporary exercises? That was the topic of the article I posted. Again, dance and distract.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Ah yes your one-sentence post laid it all out.

 

[Irish YJ]

Ah yes your one-sentence post laid it all out.

Dude, all you did was read the one sentence and think "how can I make a Trumper look stupid". Had you read the article which was about Norway asking the US to double it's troops for 5 years, you wouldn't have replied with "hey, Canada joined in a one week exercise 4 years ago" and "hey, NATO countries spent a couple months".

Again, weak, or week sauce.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Now I'm curious...what point were you trying to make?

 

[Irish YJ]

Now I'm curious...what point were you trying to make?

Simply, why is Norway asking the US, not someone else, to double it's troop size long term.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The NYT's Ross Douthat just published an article titled "The Obama-Trump Grand Strategy":

One of the paradoxes of Donald Trump’s election was that it seemed like a dramatic repudiation of Barack Obama — after the first black president, a birther; after a cool liberal academic, a roaring populist; after a multicultural “world man,” an American nationalist — and yet it happened at a time when Obama was quite popular. Ben Rhodes, the bright young salesman for Obama’s foreign policy, offered this explanation for the paradox in his recent book: “When you distilled it, stripped out the racism and misogyny, we’d run against Hillary eight years ago with the same message Trump had used: She’s part of a corrupt establishment that can’t be trusted to bring change.”

This is a reasonable general explanation for the strange phenomenon of the Obama-Trump voter. But watching the Trump-Kim reality television show play out this week in Singapore, it’s worth noting a more specific continuity between the two presidencies — between Obama’s foreign policy strategy and what Trump promised on his way to the Republican nomination and the White House.

Of course the foreign policy differences between the two presidencies are obvious — just look at the Iran deal, or the Paris climate change accords, or their differing attitudes toward Israel or Saudi Arabia, Angela Merkel and Justin Trudeau.

But there is also a mirror-image quality to their gambits and ambitions. Trump is trying to make a deal with North Korea, a last Cold War holdout, much as Obama did with Cuba. Trump is angering a traditional set of allies (the Europeans and now Canada) while pining for a détente with an authoritarian rival (Russia); Obama had a similar approach to realignment in the Middle East, angering the Israelis and Saudis while seeking an accommodation with Iran.

Meanwhile, there is a clear overlap in the two presidents’ approach to the global war on terrorism they inherited from George W. Bush: Both are willing to be aggressive with drones and bombs and special forces, both claim expansive executive authority to determine battlefields and targets, but both are wary of wider wars and ready to feud with their own advisers about anything that involves ground troops.

In all things Trump is cruder than Obama, more willing to make subtext into text, less (or not even remotely) detail-oriented, more careless of diplomatic norms and dismissive of humanitarian concerns. But if the two men use different rhetoric and often favor different alliances, they have both pursued the same kind of bigger-picture strategy — seeking to extricate the United States from some of its multiplying commitments, to shift our post-Cold War position away from a Pax Americana model of peace-through-hegemony and toward an “offshore balancing” approach that makes deals with erstwhile enemies and makes more demands of longtime friends. “America First” and “leading from behind” may sound very different, but they can reflect similar impulses and produce similar results.

This shared vision tends to be unpopular with the expert class in Washington — what Rhodes famously called the foreign policy “blob,” and what Trump would no doubt describe more pungently — but more popular with domestic constituencies. (Obama’s Iran deal always polled reasonably well, and Trump’s summit with Kim is by far the most popular thing he’s done in his presidency.) And the fact that the pursuit of offshore balancing has been sustained across two quite different administrations suggests that in some form it’s here to stay, and that the expert class should recognize its merits.

That recognition doesn’t mean shrugging off the Pax Americana. But it means acknowledging that neither the “pay any price, bear any burden” Cold War model of American leadership nor the “unipolar moment” model from the late 1990s and 2000s fits current realities very well. It means recognizing that hawkish politicians of the center-left and center-right — a Hillary Clinton, a Jeb Bush, a Marco Rubio — tend to foster an unrealistic view of what the United States can accomplish through idealistic pronouncements and military might. And it means acknowledging that both Obama and Trump triumphed politically in part because they seemed more sensible than Clinton and her Republican counterparts about the need to make strategic choices, to cut losses and to cut deals.

At the same time, the Trump partisans and apolitical normies who like the North Korea summit need to recognize that the problems that beset Obama’s attempt at “offshore balancing” could beset Trump’s efforts as well. Hegemony’s burdens are considerable, but often when the hegemon pulls back the new equilibrium turns ugly enough to pull us right back in.

That’s what happened in the Middle East in Obama’s second term, where dealing with Iraq from “offshore” led to the rise of the Islamic State and the Iranian nuclear deal may have stoked conflict in Yemen and Syria. It could easily happen under Trump in northern Asia as well, depending on how his approach looks from Pyongyang and Beijing.

As Tyler Cowen writes in one of the more optimistic takes on the summit, the wooing of Kim represents a gamble that the North Koreans really want to change their posture, to reap the possible benefits of normalization, even to enter America’s orbit instead of Beijing’s. (If Kim’s regime became merely authoritarian rather than totalitarian, imitating the House of Saud instead of Stalin, the last scenario isn’t entirely fanciful.)

But we simply don’t know whether Kim’s regime still envisions an endgame in which America retreats and South Korea submits — in which case the idea of permanent détente would be a fantasy. We also don’t know how the Chinese (and their potential allies of convenience in Moscow) would react to North Korea swinging into our orbit; there are ways in which peninsular stabilization could lead to regional destabilization. And given that Trump is a longtime huckster who’s feeling his way entirely by instinct, there should be a lot of skepticism about how well this is likely to turn out.

That skepticism, though, needs more sophistication than the “Can you imagine how the right would react if Obama cozied up to a murderous dictator like this?”/“Well, the left used to love it when Obama cozied up to murderous dictators!” argument that’s being carried on by Trump’s liberal and conservative critics on Twitter.

The reason that this “mirror, mirror” argument is possible is that Trump and Obama, for all their differences, are dealing with the same brute facts: American power is limited, America’s grand strategy is outdated or nonexistent, and being a superpower in the 2010s requires making harder choices and more unpleasant bargains than it did circa 1999.

Trump’s Korean bargain may be a bad one, or it may evaporate. But what Trump and Obama have in common — a skepticism about received foreign policy wisdom, a recognition that some burdens need to shift and some alliances need to change, an accurate read on what domestic public opinion will bear — is something the statesmen who succeed them need to share.

 

[IrishLax]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Biggest story you're likely missing right now: Merkel in an internal party crisis in Germany (over migration) and could lose a confidence vote this week, leading to her resignation. Situation in Berlin on a knife edge.</p>— Tom Wright (@thomaswright08) <a href="https://twitter.com/thomaswright08/status/1007222652665257984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 14, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[wizards8507]

Whiskey, are you @ThomasHCrown on Twitter? I think I've been following you for a long time completely coincidentally.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Whiskey, are you @ThomasHCrown on Twitter? I think I've been following you for a long time completely coincidentally.

No, that's not me, though I can definitely see why you'd think that.

 

[Irish YJ]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Biggest story you're likely missing right now: Merkel in an internal party crisis in Germany (over migration) and could lose a confidence vote this week, leading to her resignation. Situation in Berlin on a knife edge.</p>— Tom Wright (@thomaswright08) <a href="https://twitter.com/thomaswright08/status/1007222652665257984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 14, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Germany is getting hit hard and a powder keg in some areas per two of buddies who came to the US in the last 10 years. Hungary, Poland, and Italy aren't happy either. We've already seen Brexit partly because of the issue. Gexit next?

Merkel has been pummeled with issues the last couple of years. The CDU/CSU had the biggest swing (and it was negative) in the last election. If the CSU parts ways, well...
The AfD (think Trumpers) easily had the biggest gain last go around.

 

[ulukinatme]

Germany is getting hit hard and a powder keg in some areas per two of buddies who came to the US in the last 10 years. Hungary, Poland, and Italy aren't happy either. We've already seen Brexit partly because of the issue. Gexit next?

Merkel has been pummeled with issues the last couple of years. The CDU/CSU had the biggest swing (and it was negative) in the last election. If the CSU parts ways, well...
The AfD (think Trumpers) easily had the biggest gain last go around.

Same thing is happening in Italy. Right wing League party is on the rise due to the problems with migrants. It's ironic that the Pope recently was preaching about tolerance and taking in more people, all while Italy is trying to move away from that practice. A ship was just diverted a few days ago from Italy to Spain due to the migrant crisis in Italy.

 

[Irish YJ]

Same thing is happening in Italy. Right wing League party is on the rise due to the problems with migrants. It's ironic that the Pope recently was preaching about tolerance and taking in more people, all while Italy is trying to move away from that practice. A ship was just diverted a few days ago from Italy to Spain due to the migrant crisis in Italy.

Malta refused to take the ship as well.

It's this simple, mass immigration has economic, cultural, and many other consequences. My buddies can go on and on about the rise of crime in Germany. I don't know if true, but they said crime has risen by 50%. The pro-immigrant folks love to talk about the macro economic impact, and forget everything else.

Gone are the days when people stay in country and the masses effect change. Why stay and fight to make their country better when you can just leave? And that just strengthens and entrenches the evil that exists there.

The immigrants really need help, and a home, but an open door policy will end up back firing. Merkel better bring her A game and work with the EU to find a better way to manage the situation. That, I think is what the Pope was asking for (the EU get together and find a way to manage the situation).

 

[Legacy]

Trade War's Battle Lines Drawn as U.S., China Set Tariff Lists (Bloomberg)

The first wave of 25 percent tariffs will hit $34 billion in goods and take effect July 6, with another $16 billion still to be reviewed, the U.S. Trade Representative said in a separate statement.

The USTR’s final list includes 1,102 product lines, down from about 1,300 initially, mainly focused on China’s Made In 2025 plan to become dominant in high-technology industries such as robotics, aerospace, industrial machinery and automobiles. Consumer goods including mobile phones and televisions aren’t being hit with the tariffs.

Hours later -- early Saturday in China -- the nation’s Finance Ministry issued a list of 545 product categories, also covering about $34 billion in exports from the U.S., to be subject to an additional 25 percent tariff starting July 6. They included a variety of agricultural products, including soybeans, corn and wheat along with beef, pork and poultry, plus automobiles. A second set of tariffs to begin at a later date spanned other goods including coal, crude oil, gasoline and medical equipment.

Canada pushes Trans Mountain pipeline to sell oil to China far beyond US shores (CNBC)

- The Canadian government has opted to buy a pipeline project that will more than double the oil its energy industry can send to the West Coast — and then on to new markets in Asia.
- The purchase comes, coincidentally, during the thick of a bitter trade dispute with the U.S., the only customer for its crude oil.
- By building the Trans Mountain expansion, Canada will be able to sell oil outside North America, bringing in higher prices for its oil.
- The move should be be good for Canadian producers and the government, which will collect more tax dollars from the crude.

 

[Legacy]

U.S. quits U.N. human rights body, citing bias vs. Israel, alarming critics (Reuters)

 

[ACamp1900]

Same thing is happening in Italy. Right wing League party is on the rise due to the problems with migrants. It's ironic that the Pope recently was preaching about tolerance and taking in more people, all while Italy is trying to move away from that practice. A ship was just diverted a few days ago from Italy to Spain due to the migrant crisis in Italy.

One of the biggest surprises during my October trip to Italy was how open and vocal all the locals were about politics and exactly what you touched upon. I heard a number of rants you could not get away with here, bottom line was "These people don't belong here, they are destroying our economy, we are going to vote out all these politicians that continue to let them in." I have not followed closely on where they are or have gone with their elections but people were consistently vocal and mad all across Italy, it was a major theme at least back in October.

 

[connor_in]

U.S. quits U.N. human rights body, citing bias vs. Israel, alarming critics (Reuters)

What is your view on this?

 

[Legacy]

What is your view on this?

Like this is a social networking site? Ok. I wonder why the Trump administration is still in the U.N.

 

[Irish YJ]

Weary of graft and violence, Mexican voters lean toward outsider
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-election/weary-of-graft-and-violence-mexican-voters-lean-toward-outsider-idUSKBN1JR15F

Interesting guy. I like some of his views on government and corruption. Not shocked MX went the populist path. His wiki is a decent read.

Lopez Obrador has moved carefully and wants to broker a deal with Trump under which Mexico would work to rein in illegal immigration in return for economic support.

If that proves impossible and Trump keeps provoking Mexico, few think the fiercely patriotic Lopez Obrador will stay silent.

 

[Legacy]

Largest US business group attacks Trump on tariffs

 

[Irish YJ]

Exclusive: China presses Europe for anti-U.S. alliance on trade
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-eu-exclusive/exclusive-china-presses-europe-for-anti-u-s-alliance-on-trade-idUSKBN1JT1KT

So much for Buster's claim that Trump would never do anything to piss off China.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This is the U.S.'s Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, the next generation of American fighter jets. It has been in development since 1992. All told the program is slated to cost upwards of a trillion dollars.<br><br>And it is one of the most colossal pieces of shit ever created. <a href="https://t.co/iPbg0ltOfp">pic.twitter.com/iPbg0ltOfp</a></p>— BAD EGG (@MikeRoach3) <a href="https://twitter.com/MikeRoach3/status/1015212921071329281?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 6, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Irish YJ]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This is the U.S.'s Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, the next generation of American fighter jets. It has been in development since 1992. All told the program is slated to cost upwards of a trillion dollars.<br><br>And it is one of the most colossal pieces of shit ever created. <a href="https://t.co/iPbg0ltOfp">pic.twitter.com/iPbg0ltOfp</a></p>— BAD EGG (@MikeRoach3) <a href="https://twitter.com/MikeRoach3/status/1015212921071329281?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 6, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I think we should sell these to our Euro "friends"

 

[Irish YJ]

European leaders 'scared to death' Trump will pull US troops home, ex-defense chief says | Fox News

It's time to pull them back, and rent them for those willing to actually pay. lol

 

[dublinirish]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44770847

lol

 

[Legacy]

Having posted the Chamber of Commerce's and Citigroups' analyses of how much each state will lose with the tariffs and other nations' response in the Trump thread and, specifically, Alabama's projected losses with both Alabama Senators oppositions, here are other Rep Senators oppositions:

‘I’d like to kill ’em’: GOP takes on Trump tariffs
Republican lawmakers are losing their patience with the president’s trade war, saying it’s hurting their states and the party’s chances in the midterms.

“I’d like to kill ’em,” groused Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a close Trump ally, referring to the administration’s expanding list of tariffs.

“Individual senators have met with the president, including me. The Ag committee met with him, the Finance Committee met with him. And there’s nobody for this,” said Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), the Agriculture Committee chairman. Trump is “a protectionist who has his policy wrapped around the rear axle of a pickup. And it’s hard to get out.”

Hatch “is pretty fired up,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the No. 3 GOP leader. And “there’s definitely a lot of sentiment among members of the Finance Committee that the administration’s tariff positions are going to step on ... the economic gains that we’ve made.”

Republican senators have privately circulated a list of five tweaks that could be made to the “232” law that governs national security tariffs, according to people familiar with the matter. A number of senators believe that Trump has abused that authority with the steel and aluminum tariffs, and they are discussing whether to change the definition of national security to restrict Trump’s actions.

But the action isn’t just in the finance panel, which could takes weeks, if not months, to write and pass a bill that balances the Republicans' support for Trump with their opposition to his trade policies. GOP Sens. Bob Corker of Tennessee and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania are now trying to attach their own tariff proposal — which would allow Congress to vote up or down on any tariff with a national security rationale — to almost anything that moves across the Senate floor.

In addition to the above Republican senators, Jeff Flake of Arizona and Ben Sasse of Nebraska have criticized Trump's tariffs.
GOP senators Toomey, Flake, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Mike Lee of Utah signed on to Corker's bill. On the Democratic side, Sens. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Mark Warner of Virginia, Brian Schatz of Hawaii and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland co-sponsored it.

Sen Chuck Grassley, Rep from Iowa about Iowa farmers' prospects of losing $624 million said "We know what happens when tariffs are increased ... and there's retaliation. It hurts agriculture. It's going to hurt Iowa tremendously." Grassley serves or has served on the Senate's Committee on Finance, the Committee on Agriculture, Committee on the Budget, and the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Iowa's other Rep. Senator, Joni Ernst, said:

“Farmers need trade, not aid. These tariffs are nothing more than a tax on Iowa farm families and the escalating trade war is putting the livelihoods of our rural communities in the crosshairs.

“With farmers facing increased financial pressure from low commodity prices and high production costs, it’s becoming harder and harder for producers to turn a profit. These aggressive trade actions will continue to have damaging consequences, including an impact on our commodity prices and farm futures, and increasing anxiety among the agricultural and business communities in Iowa."

Alaska's Congressional Delegation - all Reps, including Senators Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, have called Trump's actions on imposing tariffs "deeply regrettable". Alaska stands to lose $1.3 billion in trade with China, mostly seafood. Alaska's partnership with China on a trillion dollar natural gas pipeline is in jeopardy. Trump touted this pipeline project as one of the crown jewels in trade agreements earlier this year, though negotiations pre-dated his administration. It's the only trillion dollar project in the U.S. and the largest energy project ever.

The Rep Senators say that Trump has abused his authority in imposing tariffs for national security reasons under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Bipartisan lawmakers have questioned what national security threat allies such as Canada pose.

Trump has left farmers and ranchers nowhere to send their produce having exited trade agreements, alienating our NAFTA partners which impose their own tariffs and in worsening relationships with our EU allies. Trump was playing golf again this weekend for the 125th time since he became President. Estimating that each time he goes to play golf last only two days, Trump will have spent half his Presidency golfing. Those golfing vacations have cost U.S. taxpayers millions.

 

[Irish YJ]

British eurosceptic ministers quit in blow to May's Brexit plan
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-davis/uk-brexit-secretary-david-davis-has-resigned-source-close-to-davis-idUSKBN1JY10K

Merkel, now May, in major struggles. Glad it's just not the US that's an epic shit show.

 

[Irish YJ]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Sadiq Khan baby balloon raised more money in significantly less time than the Trump baby balloon.<br><br>Guess which one got 99% of media coverage? <a href="https://t.co/xSrlXV1Kog">pic.twitter.com/xSrlXV1Kog</a></p>— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) <a href="https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1015963456074379264?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 8, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Irish YJ]

London Mayor Sadiq Khan balloon planned to counter 'Trump baby' blimp in London | Fox News

 

[dshans]

Balloon wars. Gotta love it!

 

[Irish YJ]

Balloon wars. Gotta love it!

You just can't make this crap up. This is not the greatest of optics for Khan. He set his own self up.... I'm wouldn't be surprised if we saw a Theresa May baby given all the bad press she's getting these days.

Anyway, funny AF