There are two inescapable conclusions in the aftermath of Trumpâs missile strikes in Syria. First, the US can no longer focus only on destroying ISIS. Now, we are in the position of having to also burn calories dealing with the fallout from those strikes with Russia, Syria and Iran.
Second, we can no longer keep our previous distance vis-Ă -vis the Syrian civil war separate from our relations with Russia. Before Trumpâs Tomahawking, it was possible to argue that Russiaâs involvement in Syria was peripheral to our goals in Syria, and certainly not central to overall US/Russian relations. Now, the US has put at risk the limited cooperation we have had with Russian in Syria regarding ISIS.
And for what? Apparently, Trumpâs missile strikes didnât change much on the ground in Syria. In fact, the Syrian air force just used the same air strip that we blasted with 60 tomahawk missiles (at the cost of $1million a copy) to again bomb the same city that suffered the sarin attack.
Doubtless, Trump will call this a âvictoryâ but, if you use $60 million to disable an airbase, shouldnât it be disabled? Again, the question is: What was Trump trying to accomplish? He has taken a dangerous situation, and seemingly made it more dangerous. To Wrongo, it looks like Trump got nearly nothing from his attack. Does this remind anyone of Trumpâs attack on Yemen?
Since the Syrian fly-boys are back in the air, bombing the SAME city, Trump looks like a fool. Want to bet that he will feel the need to correct that impression? On to Cartoons!
Who/What was Trump aiming his tomahawks at?
We tipped off Putin that the tomahawks were coming:
Trump meets with Chinaâs Xi and learns something:
Negotiations with Xi werenât as easy as Trump thought:
Mitch McConnell, wrecker extraordinaire:
Invoking the nuclear option made things much easier for the GOP:
Ready, Fire, Aim! Arenât you glad we didnât elect Hillary, the neo con warmonger? From Booman:
Our Bush Era PTSD has been reactivated in a big way. While I offered a limited and cautious and conditional defense of President Trumpâs decision to authorize the strikes against Syria, I was at pains to note that itâs very important that the administration provide convincing evidence that the Assad regime is responsible for the sarin attack that served as the predicate for the missile launch.
Russia and Syria have denied that they are behind the Syrian Chemical Weapons (CW) attack. We know there was an attack, and that some kind of chemical was used. The media are saying it was sarin gas.
They also, nearly unanimously, say it is the fault of the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. Earlier in the week, both US Foreign Secretary Rex Tillerson and US UN envoy Nikki Haley said removing Assad was no longer a priority in US Middle-East policy.
Now, Assad has to go.
Most news outlets and pundits support Donald Trumpâs spanking of the Assad government, but what is Trumpâs strategy? Enforcing norms against the use of chemical weapons (CW) is a good thing. But itâs hard to see how Thursdayâs all-out reversal of our level of engagement in the Syrian civil war is justified by the use of CW, particularly since it has been used several times before in Syria, and since it brings with it many other risks/issues, like a potential military confrontation with Russia and Iran.
After Thursdayâs Tomahawk missile attack, we are now simultaneously confronting the two strongest factions in the Syrian civil war, Assadâs army and ISIS. While Trump and the MSM are going bananas about the horrors of CW, no one was going bananas last week, or in all the prior weeks, about the daily death count of Syrian children who were collateral damage in the countryâs civil war.
The attack took place in the midst of President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping This was where one of the hottest topics was what to do about North Korea’s continuing long-range missile tests and its work on completing a deliverable nuclear warhead.
Clearly there were implicit messages for both North Korea and China in the Syrian attack. This has something to do with Syria, and a lot to do with the Chinese. Military types would tell us that Trump firing 59 cruise missiles to take out an airfield is overkill.
But, it will not be lost on Xi that 50+cruise missiles could also devastate any of those new atoll airfields cropping up in the South China Sea. Donald Trump just proved to Xi that he is a man with 4,000+ nuclear weapons at this disposal and a military that follows orders. It looks to Wrongo like Xi and Putin now have a giant incentive to become better allies, and invite Iran to the party.
Once again, Wrongo thinks that the best option for the US would be to concentrate on humanitarian efforts and helping refugees. And to work with Russia and Syriaâs other allies to end the threat from ISIS in the greater Middle East.
Unfortunately, that also admits there is a limitation on the USâs ability to control events solely based on its military strength. Despite its flaws, if thereâs no reason to believe any strategy will improve results, then the best course is inaction. That was Obamaâs approach.
Itâs just not true that we âMust Do Somethingâ. People think that if we Do Something, then nothing bad that subsequently happens is really our fault, because AT LEAST WE DID SOMETHING. Whereas if we do nothing, then every bad thing that subsequently happens is our fault.
Thanks, Obama.
We really donât have to do anything. The problem is that by following the do-nothing strategy, America doesnât get to be the biggest, baddest ass on the Middle East Street.
Yes, if we do nothing, lots of people will die, but that doesnât exactly distinguish it from what will happen anyway. Our inaction wonât transfer blame for those deaths onto us, any more than an action to take out Assad will shift it from us.
Who knew running the worldâs superpower was so complicated? Certainly, not someone who said âI alone can fix itâ.
âIt’s tough to make predictions. Especially about the future.â â Yogi Berra
Since you have already plunged a stake into the heart of 2016, it is time for some predictions about 2017, which most likely, wonât happen. We can expect the following:
There will be more global political and social turmoil:
The EU could collapse. France is a Marine LePen government away from pursuing an exit from the EU, so there would be a Frexit to go along with Brexit.
On this New Year, I am most concerned about the difficulties of the masses: how they eat, how they live, whether they can have a good New Year…
The US will continue to lose influence globally despite âMr. Unpredictableâ becoming our Orange Overlord: Trump brags about winning when he negotiates. That has been undeniably true in his real estate and name brand licensing. He will find that when the other side doesnât need access to his brand in order to succeed, he will have to resort to instilling fear. That may work once, but it will not work consistently.
A corollary: Trump arrives in the Oval Office as an overconfident leader, the man with no plan but with a short attention span, and within six months, he will have his first major policy failure. Getting his hand burned will make him more subdued, more conservative and less populist thereafter.
A second corollary: The triumvirate of Russia/Turkey/Iran will elbow the US firmly out of the Fertile Crescent, and secure friendly regimes in Damascus, Baghdad and Tehran. This will push American influence in the Middle East back to just the Gulf States, a weakened Saudi Arabia, and an increasingly isolated Israel.
Domestically, drug abuse, suicide, and general self-destructive behavior will continue to climb and become impossible to ignore.
The Trump stock market rally has already turned into the Santa Selloff. The Dow peaked on December 20 at 19,975, 25 points away from party-hat time. But since then, Dow 20,000 slipped through our fingers like sand. It closed the year at 19,719, down 281 points from 20k.
Regarding the stock market, many people who want to sell stocks waited until 2017 in order to pay lower capital gains tax. Selling in January could lower prices further.
The growing antibiotic resistance to main stream drugs will impact health in the US.
Meta Prediction: It is certain that few Trump voters will get the results they voted for. Some people who voted for Trump have incompatible outcomes in mind, so it’s a virtual guarantee that a sizable minority are going to feel cheated when they fail to get what they were promised.
OTOH, when Trump fails, most of his base will blame anyone but the Donald. The question is, when disillusionment sets in, will the reaction be a turning away, or a doubling down on the anger?
Wrongo thinks anger will win out.
The coming Trump administration will seem like a fractious family outing: Just under half of the family (the âlandslideâ segment) wanted to go out, but now, the whole family has to go. Those who wanted to stay home will sulk in the back seat while Daddy tells them to stop bitching.
Meanwhile, once we are out of the driveway, it dawns on everyone that Daddy hasn’t decided yet where to go. Everyone pipes up with suggestions, but Daddy again tells everyone to shut up, because itâs his decision alone. There will be the usual âare we there yet?â complaining, some motion sickness and incessant fighting over who is touching whom.
Daddy wonât reveal the destination, but insists everyone will love it once they get there, even those who wanted to stay home, those who wanted to go the beach, and those who wanted to head over the cliff like Thelma and Louise.
Time for our Monday Wake Up Call, âWake Up Everybodyâ, originally by Harold Melvin and The Bluenotes, featuring Teddy Pendergrass. Teddy left the group for his solo career after this album.
But, today we will hear and watch John Legendâs cover of the tune, backed by the Roots Band along with Melanie Fiona, and Common. The song is as strong as it was 42 years ago when it was released:
Those who read the Wrongologist in email can view the video here.
The following are books that Wrongo hopes to finish by spring. They are all supposed to be good for you, like vitamins, or exercise. A few more may be added to the pile, but it is already an ambitious list to get through in the next quarter:
Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari. Harari asks how Homo sapiens evolved from an unexceptional savannah-dwelling primate to become the dominant force on the planet.
The Sympathizer by Viet Trang Nguyen won the 2016 Pulitzer Prize for fiction. It describes a Viet Cong agent undercover with the Republic of Vietnam forces and the US military. He is bi-racial, with a Vietnamese mother and a French GI father, making him a âman of two mindsâ. He escapes after the Fall of Saigon, and lives in the Vietnamese refugee community in LA, while secretly reporting back to his communist superiors in Vietnam.
The First Congress by Fergus M. Bordewitch. Americaâs beginnings have been enjoying new popularity. The play âHamiltonâ shows that better than any book. This interest has been sparked by a recognition that the American Revolution was a beginning, not an ending, of the story of our nation. And today, we need big ideas and role models more than ever.
The Populist Explosion by John Judis. Did an unstoppable wave of Populism give us Donald Trump? This is a 184 page book that may tell us.
The Undoing Project by Michael Lewis. Israeli psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky changed our assumptions about decision-making. Their work created the field of behavioral economics, for which Kahneman was awarded the Nobel Prize (Tversky had already died). The book is about their work, their incredibly close relationship, and how it went sideways.
Wrongo just finished this highly readable book. In 1950, South Korea was invaded by the North, and our troops were nearly forced to abandon the peninsula.
Harry Truman was president. After WWII, America was not interested, or able to fight another war. We had demobilized our troops, and had limited numbers of planes, ships and equipment that were combat ready, but the thinking was that holding Korea was necessary to protect Japan from invasion by the Soviets and the Chinese.
General MacArthur was the greatest military hero of his time, and was in charge of Americaâs interests in Asia. In the Korean conflict, he had an early brilliant success, launching a counter-attack against the North Koreans at Inchon that led to the North Koreans being completely routed. MacArthur pursued them into North Korea, all the way to the Chinese border. China saw MacArthur on their border as an existential threat, and joined the conflict in huge numbers, pushing the allied forces back again into the south.
MacArthur had constantly lobbied (and actually took steps) to extend the war into China. He based that on advising Truman that the Chinese would never enter the war. He further insisted that the battle against communism should be fought in Asia, while Truman and the administration felt certain that the real trouble spot was Europe. We had already engaged Russia in the Berlin airlift in 1948. In fact, the CIA had warned that:
The Soviet Union may seize upon the present crisis [Korea] to precipitate general war with the United States.
MacArthur offered an unauthorized ceasefire to the North Koreans while threatening the alternative of nuclear war with China. He wanted to use Taiwanâs military to help defeat Chinaâs troops in Korea, which would have left Taiwan unprotected, and would have re-started the war between the mainland and Taiwan that had just ended in 1949. He also wrote an inflammatory letter to a Republican congressman, contradicting his Commander in Chiefâs strategy for Korea.
His actions caused his firing in April, 1951. Afterward, Truman came under withering attack from Republicans. MacArthur was hailed as a hero. He addressed a joint session of Congress, and had ticker tape parades all across the US. But, at Congressional hearings called to justify Trumanâs strategy, the tide gradually turned against MacArthur.
The author does a fantastic job sourcing now de-classified portions of the hearings to demonstrate the danger in MacArthurâs ideas. Because of the hearings, all in Congress finally understood what America was facing globally, how ill-prepared we were at the time, and the folly of MacArthurâs plans.
MacArthur flirted with running for president, and Truman was weakened after his 1948 election. So MacArthur moved to kill the king. He called Truman an appeaser, someone who did not understand the global threat of communism. Truman did not run for reelection.
Eisenhower became president in 1952, having pledged to bring peace on the Korean peninsula.
Today, Truman is vindicated, and is considered a near-great president, while MacArthur is viewed as a brilliant military man who let politics ruin him.
Weâve entered uncharted territory. Trump had a phone call with the president of Taiwan. Why is that such an issue? Presidents speak to other world leaders all the time, but American presidents have not spoken to the president of Taiwan since 1979. This studied form of non-recognition is at the core of the One-China Policy.
That policy states that there is only one state called “China”, despite the existence of two governments claiming to be China. This diplomatic dance works precisely because everybody agrees to abide by rules that don’t make complete sense.
We learned from experience in Korea and Vietnam, where we acted with hostility to both âtwo countryâ standoffs between a communist and a non-communist government. We learned, and then changed the game when it came to the two Chinas. That is, until President-Elect Trump was lured into the Taiwan call by his advisors, John Bolton and Stephen Yates. This from the Guardian: (strike out and brackets by the Wrongologist)
Bolton wrote in the Wall Street Journal in January: âThe new US administration could start with receiving Taiwanese diplomats officially at the State Department; upgrading the status of US representation in Taipei from a private âinstituteâ to an official diplomatic mission; inviting Taiwanâs president to travel officially to America; allowing the most senior US officials to visit Taiwan to transact government business; and ultimately restoring full diplomatic recognition.â
Stephen Yates, a former White House aide to Dick Cheney now advising the Trump transition was in Taiwan at the time of [Trumpâs] the call. âItâs great to have a leader willing to ignore those who say he cannot take a simple call from another democratically elected leader,â Yates tweeted.
China reacted by saying Trump needs to be educated about the world. Scott Adams, Trump butt-boy, puts it in about the most favorable light possible:
Trump is âsetting the tableâ for future negotiations with China. He just subtracted something from Chinaâs brand that they value, and later he will negotiate with them to maybe give it back in some fashion. Probably in return for some trade concessions.
It didnât end there. Trump apparently has invited Philippine President Duterte to the White House. Figuring out how to resolve Duterteâs issues with the US, his embrace of China, and his demonstrated abuse of human rights in the Philippines should be high on the new administrationâs list of issues. It would have been smart to have the outline of an agreed joint solution in place before rewarding Duterte with a state visit.
And there was Trumpâs phone call with the Prime Minister of Pakistan. According to the Pakistani account of the conversation, Trump told Nawaz Sharif that Pakistan is a âfantasticâ country full of âfantasticâ people that he âwould loveâ to visit as president.
Just awesome, except for Trump ignoring that India, our real partner in that part of Asia, is Pakistanâs enemy. Trump risks appearing to reward Pakistan at the expense of our relationship with India. Again, the US has maintained a balancing act between these two countries, who have a history of war and skirmishes over their disputed border.
The jury is out on what Trump is trying to do, and whether it is based on strategy, or ideology. Speaking with Taiwan’s and Pakistanâs leaders are potentially dangerous moves, as is his engagement with Duterte.
They are also potentially revolutionary. Every out-of-the-box move by Trump challenges norms and potentially blows up longstanding ways of doing things. If you are gonna shake things up, it’s all-important that you understand exactly why we have done things the way we have, and what the implications are of change. We know Trump is an instinctive guy, and not a willing student. The danger is his willingness to overturn complex situations where governmental institutions have had very good reasons for the policy they support.
This is the dark underbelly of Trumpâs populism. He was elected to shake things up by voters who dismiss facts, if presented by journalists.
You start by discrediting what came before. You call it elite failure. You shake things up because you can.
Time to wake up, America! Think about Michael Mooreâs calling Trump a human Molotov cocktail on NBCâs âMeet the Pressâ:
Across the Midwest, across the Rustbelt, I understand why a lot of people are angry. And they see Donald Trump as their human Molotov cocktail…I think they love the idea of blowing up the system.
So, letâs wake up today with the Billy Joel song, âWe Didn’t Start the Fireâ. The lyrics to this song catalog both personalities and historic events from 1949 until 1989:
We didnât start Trumpâs fire, but get ready, we may very well have to put it out.
Those who read the Wrongologist in email can view the video here.
Sample lyrics: Harry Truman, Doris Day, Red China, Johnnie Ray
South Pacific, Walter Winchell, Joe DiMaggio
Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Studebaker, Television
North Korea, South Korea, Marilyn Monroe
Rosenbergs, H-Bomb, Sugar Ray, Panmunjom Brando, The King And I, and The Catcher In The Rye Eisenhower, Vaccine, England’s got a new queen Marciano, Liberace, Santayana goodbye
We didn’t start the fire It was always burning Since the world’s been turning We didn’t start the fire No we didn’t light it But we tried to fight it
Quite the week. Trump makes Cabinet appointments, he tweets about taking citizenship away from US flag burners exercising freedom of speech, he takes a call from the president of Taiwan, and gets a formal protest from China.
That wasnât all. You missed it, but Congress passed HR 5732, the âCaesar Syria Civilian Protection Actâ. The bill sets the stage for the implementation of a no-fly zone (NFZ) over Syria. It requires the administration to submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report:
That assesses the potential effectiveness, risks and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part of all of Syria.
These Congressional chicken hawks may not realize that NFZs are a form of limited war. Politicians are usually the first to forget that limited wars only stay limited by mutual agreement. The military will tell you to never declare an NFZ unless you are entirely willing to fight a real air and ground war to enforce it. In the case of Syria, a No-Fly Zone would require the destruction of Syrian aircraft and missile systems from Day 1, probably leading to the death of Russians shortly thereafter. We could have a shooting war with Russia by the end of the first week.
Syria has over 130 air defense systems. A dozen or so are in the Aleppo area. Syria also has over 4,000 air defense artillery pieces and a few thousand portable infrared-guided missile systems. Russia has also located its advanced S-400 anti-aircraft missiles into Syria to protect their bases in Latakia Province. Those missile systems effectively give Russia control over Syriaâs airspace, and for the US to impose a no-fly zone would require an air battle with Russia, which would all but guarantee the loss of a large number of US warplanes.
Over the last 25 years, there has been an evolving political infatuation with two pillars of âpolitical airpowerâ: airstrikes and no-fly zones. Did we get the results our politicians promised?
Onward to cartoons. Trump goes to Indiana, gives Carrier tax breaks:
It was great political theater, but it is a standard âsocialize the lossesâ GOP play: tax breaks for jobs. The taxes earned from keeping the jobs never pay the cost of the tax credits.
Paul Krugman had a good observation:
Fidel Castro dies:
Free speech isnât well understood by the Orange Overlord:
Nancy Pelosi is reelected as Minority Leader. Many are pleased:
Mitt wants work, will say anything:
Trump still has lots of posts to fill. Word is that former vice presidential candidate and Tina Fey impersonator Sarah Palin is on the list of possible Cabinet appointments.
Speaking to business leaders in Washington on Tuesday, Giuliani said the US would increase its number of troops to 550,000, instead of shrinking it to 420,000. He also said they intended to take the navy up to 350 ships. It currently has around 280, but the plan is to decrease to 247: (brackets by the Wrongologist)
At 350, [ships] China canât match us in the Pacific. At 247 ships, we canât fight a two-ocean war; we gave up the Pacific. If you face them with a military that is modern, gigantic, overwhelming and unbelievably good at conventional and asymmetric warfare, they may challenge it, but I doubt it
Out of the probable Clinton/Nuland frying pan, into the reality of the Trump/Giuliani dumpster fire.
The Trump plan is to build up the Navy in order to fight a âtwo-ocean warâ. Itâs going to be difficult to build that size fleet in four years. A 350 ship Navy will be prohibitively expensive â the Navyâs new DD(X) destroyers cost $4 billion each; 70 new ships @ $4 billion each is $2.8 trillion, (and it might be more like 100 ships). But the DD(X) is not yet proven to work very well in rough seas, which seems a bit of a problem.
Giuliani thinks that China wouldnât challenge 350 ships. He may be correct. That will stretch our economy, and it would certainly stretch Chinaâs. China of course, is likely to respond with a military build-up of its own: They can probably build 350 (or more) anti-ship missiles with nuclear warheads in four years, and have the ability to blow up quite a number of the Giuliani-class navy vessels if necessary.
Want to see a few more Pacific reefs? A US/China military contest could deliver them.
Trump ran to the left of Clinton regarding Russia and the Middle East. He spoke about normalizing relations with Russia and lately, he has said Russia and the US should cooperate on defeating ISIS in Syria. What is the point of seeking decent relations with Russia, the other nuclear super-power, if you are going to press a military bet with the third largest nuclear weapons state?
We thought that Trump wanted a trade war with China, but we were only half right. Heâs going to re-engage with battleship diplomacy, in true Ronald Reagan Cold War fashion.
Trump wouldnât bother augmenting the Pacific fleet unless his objective was to try to out-gun, out-spend, out-trade andoutright suppress the rise of China.
That strategy will lead to a sharp Chinese response. It isnât at all clear that Russia would stay neutral in this power game. Russia might support China, like they did in the 1950s. Forbes says this: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)
Although the Chinese and Russians may not be natural economic allies due to historical grievances…and alleged xenophobia of Russians toward Chinese businessmen, an expanded alliance between the two countries could unfold if either presidential hopeful, particularly Donald Trump, acts on promises to get tough on China…A Chinese-Russian economic relationship that develops naturally, rather than out of security fears on both ends, is one that is more favorable to the US.
There has always been some sense in a muscular China policy. That was why Obamaâs plan was to âpivotâ toward Asia.
China shows every intention of expanding its influence outward. Containment has always been our best option with them, unless you believe in military confrontation. We should continue the current strategy of promoting/supporting resistance by Chinaâs neighbors, supporting a regional arms buildup by South Korea, Japan, India, Vietnam and others. We can hope that this strategy will, over time, convince the Chinese to give up their imperial dream of dominating the South China Sea and its contiguous states.
Trump got elected on a more isolationist premise than Clintonâs or Obamaâs. He led people to believe that heâd be far more focused on domestic policy and domestic security, including things like terrorism and immigration.
But since GOP controlled Congress will move quickly to end the Sequester, which could add $500 billion in defense spending over the next decade, now it seems that his administration will be more hawkish, possibly even more than what Hillary Clinton would have wanted.
Canât we put these war-mongering dinosaurs out to pasture? Then they can dress up like WWII Generals and play out their global dominance fantasies whenever they want.
