I would categorize General Joseph Dunford's speech before the Brooking's group last Wednesday, May 29, 2019 as a recapitulation of items in the Republican Foreign Policy agenda where US military action might occur in the near future. He is the Chairman, Joint Chief of Staffs of the United States military.
Missing were items pertaining to Venezuela. which I understand a regional conference is attending to, and Syria, where President Trump has already declared victory over Al Qaeda. There was no relevance to the negotiations of a pending US-China Trade Agreement. But be it noted that the Republicans have always been leery of helping a Communist nation gain prominence on the world stage. Specifically, it has never been happy about the US trade with China, I contend. (Even less happy has been the Christian Right as it witnesses the many conversions to Christianity in China today.)
General Dunford was asked the question by the event's moderator Mr. Michael O'Hanlon of Brookings, How has the world changed since 2015, when you became Chairman?
He noted that relations with Russia have become less of a military problem, since NATO has become involved in Ukraine's sovereignty. The relatively recent issue of the capture of the boat and sailors from Ukraine by Russia on open waters was not mentioned. I suppose they will never be heard of again. Nor the presence of Russian troops in eastern Ukrainian territory. Nor did he mention that apparently China is prepared to resurrect a port in the Crimea for Russia that illegally occupies the land.
But he said that Georgia seems better able to deal with Russia, today.
On Korea, Munford argued that the fleet exercises between S. Korea and the US are not being scaled down but becoming less visible and dominating. Training and readiness are being achieved between their coordination.
The South China sea situation seems stable. Munford didn't mention any problem with the navigational shipping lanes in that region, despite China's dominance in that geographical area. Munford emphasized that the rule of law must be maintained in determining regional control of the South China Seas; and I am sure he would also include a factor of competency and ability to maintain a military presence to assure trade and the free-flow of shipping and vessels. The controlling fleet must be assertive.
The intentions of Iran in waters near it seemed unclear to Munford; and he is prepared to do an investigation to determine how ships in the area have come under attack with artillery and explosive devices in that part of the world. One questioner from the audience raised the possibility that some group wishing to start hostilities between the US and Iran may be responsible. Munford assume this person that he will do a thorough investigation and determine the culprits. Be it relevant, still, that the US has been opposed to the Iranian regime in power since 1979. Its current sanctions against Iranian industry and government bespeaks its hostility to that regime today. And the Iranians no doubt are mad that since Trump has pulled out of the nuclear agreement with it, the sanctions have remained in place, when seemingly there are no dealings between these two countries. The US nonetheless wants its partners to honor the sanctions, to this day.
Peace talks in Afghanistan with Kabul and the Taliban are continuing--seemingly, will go on and on.
He appreciated the 2020 military budget that the Trump administration is proposing.
And that seemed to be it! The world is a safe place because US military might is keeping war to a planet's minimum!
Friday, May 31, 2019
Friday, May 24, 2019
Cato Institute Book Review: The Wealth Explosion. Author: Stephen Davies
How did the Western World become so rich in the 18th Century? Why Europe? Professor Stephen Davies Head of Education, Institute of Economic Affairs, London talked about his book The Wealth Explosion at the Cato Institute on May 23, 2019 at 10 AM. Moderating was Ryan Bourne of Cato and the commentator was Professor Jack Goldstone of George Mason University.
Professor Davies mentioned the rise of cities and world-wide trade as background factors to one major change in how people lived: for the new modernity sustained very large populations around the world. Specifically, most people were living on the planet in mega-population centers called cities, interacting through communication networks extant at the time globally. An obvious exchange of ideas among peoples of differing backgrounds. But the wealth explosion occurred in Europe. I think one must turn to other features to account for this historical presence in Europe of modernity (with all its accumulated wealth): the rise of the scientific method in the study of the world's features, the success, particularly in the West, of the university system in collecting, storing, and disseminating knowledge; and encouragement of experimentation and innovation among a general public imbued by the wonders of the universe!
Professor Gladstone added the development of conceptual of principles of living together and striving to achieve happiness through becoming committed citizens to Western Civilization. The understanding that each person has rights inalienable to him. Gladstone noted that the Chinese did not even have the notion that an individual self could contribute to his society in some lasting way by what he thinks or does. Further, he pointed out that in several countries, the leaders were not emboldened by the spirit of accountability to those they led. They made autocratic decisions in time of crises without formulating how their actions would bring about a healthier society of their people.
He alluded to major features in today's changed, modern society: the rise in the status of women and the termination of the practice of slavery as signs in our relating to one another.
The discussion that followed with audience participation simply highlighted Professor Davies' profound identification in world phenomena: the 18th Century was an explosion of knowledge and scientific rigor that heralded a contemporary reliance upon big cities, big corporations and, (what some analysts would say is unfortunate,) big government.
Professor Davies mentioned the rise of cities and world-wide trade as background factors to one major change in how people lived: for the new modernity sustained very large populations around the world. Specifically, most people were living on the planet in mega-population centers called cities, interacting through communication networks extant at the time globally. An obvious exchange of ideas among peoples of differing backgrounds. But the wealth explosion occurred in Europe. I think one must turn to other features to account for this historical presence in Europe of modernity (with all its accumulated wealth): the rise of the scientific method in the study of the world's features, the success, particularly in the West, of the university system in collecting, storing, and disseminating knowledge; and encouragement of experimentation and innovation among a general public imbued by the wonders of the universe!
Professor Gladstone added the development of conceptual of principles of living together and striving to achieve happiness through becoming committed citizens to Western Civilization. The understanding that each person has rights inalienable to him. Gladstone noted that the Chinese did not even have the notion that an individual self could contribute to his society in some lasting way by what he thinks or does. Further, he pointed out that in several countries, the leaders were not emboldened by the spirit of accountability to those they led. They made autocratic decisions in time of crises without formulating how their actions would bring about a healthier society of their people.
He alluded to major features in today's changed, modern society: the rise in the status of women and the termination of the practice of slavery as signs in our relating to one another.
The discussion that followed with audience participation simply highlighted Professor Davies' profound identification in world phenomena: the 18th Century was an explosion of knowledge and scientific rigor that heralded a contemporary reliance upon big cities, big corporations and, (what some analysts would say is unfortunate,) big government.
Tuesday, May 21, 2019
The Military Has Earned the respect to be at the table of governmental policy decisions
I think one thing that stands out in my on-the-job education in the realm of governmental matters is that the military is a co-equal partner in deciding how to run the government.
Military high echelon are today well-educated and versed in all aspects of governmental operations and design of public policy plans. It is essential that their point of view be expressed at the President's Cabinet level, for instance.
The duties of running the military have been greatly expanded, too. In a profound sense, they are entrusted to preserve and protect and distribute the country's assets, including money, minerals, and property owned by those inhabitants of land within its boundaries. Moreover, should questions and disputes arise among the citizenry that cannot easily be resolved through political and judicial systems of the government, the military must see to it that order and stability is maintained in the nation.
I leave it to military historians to describe the many times that the military has demonstrated its loyalty to a nation and its constitution.
Military high echelon are today well-educated and versed in all aspects of governmental operations and design of public policy plans. It is essential that their point of view be expressed at the President's Cabinet level, for instance.
The duties of running the military have been greatly expanded, too. In a profound sense, they are entrusted to preserve and protect and distribute the country's assets, including money, minerals, and property owned by those inhabitants of land within its boundaries. Moreover, should questions and disputes arise among the citizenry that cannot easily be resolved through political and judicial systems of the government, the military must see to it that order and stability is maintained in the nation.
I leave it to military historians to describe the many times that the military has demonstrated its loyalty to a nation and its constitution.
DC goes slow; everywhere else speeds up!
I've been back in DC for a little over one and a half years. I've noticed that things here go slow, much slower than in the field. Most of the time I've been associated with government, I've been in the field--abroad a little bit and around the States, based in either San Francisco, LA, El Paso, Vegas, Reno, or Omaha and once-in-a-while in Santa Barbara (I really liked it there).
I think DC does it in slow motion--waiting for the opposition to coalesce and lead the fight, take over the headlines. It's the English style of a gentlemen's tiff.
Take the Mueller investigation. I perceived three months before the report was ready, that the Trump people were ganging up ready to strike in the media. And so they did with the Barr nomination for AG. At that point, I thought an interim report from Mueller was necessary to take command of the news coverage on the Russian hacking inquiry. Instead, Trump's twitters took center stage prominence and dictated, virtually, the events that were to transpire in the coming months, until now, we don't know whether Mueller even wants to stay involved in defending the report his name is attached to!
The point is to stay in the lead to dictate how the matter with much controversy should unfold.
In the field, you don't know how long you'll be on any one project, so you stay on top of things and get what you need to do in the forefront of public discussion and you control the agenda of disclosure as much as you can for as long as you're involved in the particular project-subject matter.
I think DC does it in slow motion--waiting for the opposition to coalesce and lead the fight, take over the headlines. It's the English style of a gentlemen's tiff.
Take the Mueller investigation. I perceived three months before the report was ready, that the Trump people were ganging up ready to strike in the media. And so they did with the Barr nomination for AG. At that point, I thought an interim report from Mueller was necessary to take command of the news coverage on the Russian hacking inquiry. Instead, Trump's twitters took center stage prominence and dictated, virtually, the events that were to transpire in the coming months, until now, we don't know whether Mueller even wants to stay involved in defending the report his name is attached to!
The point is to stay in the lead to dictate how the matter with much controversy should unfold.
In the field, you don't know how long you'll be on any one project, so you stay on top of things and get what you need to do in the forefront of public discussion and you control the agenda of disclosure as much as you can for as long as you're involved in the particular project-subject matter.
Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Comment: Atlantic Article "Witness to the Counter Revolution" by William Burns
The article appeared in The Atlantic April, 2019, adapted from his book The Back Channel: A Memoir of American Diplomacy and the Case for Its Renewal.
------------------------------
Remarkable to witness the establishment of a caretaker government--really, that's what Putin is President of. The Russian government faltered under Yeltsin after the Empire collapsed, then Putin was installed; and his dicta have been followed ever since, making him a very rich man with several palatial estates.
There could be no rapprochement with the West afterward because Russia is the land of the Czars--the elegance of aristocrat-dominated Europe. The best in music, ballet and opera. A heritage that should not be cast aside to become embroiled in a market economy of an up-and-down stock market and risky future. I saw Russia first-hand in the 1990s during the demise of the Empire; and it was depressing to see.
Who came on the scene early during the changeover was the Mafia--Burns has it right. People were hungry and disparate for a staple existence. And, I believe that early on in Putin's government the people did well in recovering. But then he longed for more; he longed for what only an Empire resurrected would give him. To him, Russia became his resource for personal attainment of Czar status, even when there was no czar any longer.
When you look upon his face you see a depressed man (at least, I do)! When I was there, everybody knew oil was there in the ground for production and selling. Their future was not gloom and doom; but nor was it that other nations' would do obeisance to a tarnished star.
Today, he is floundering, yet popular among his people. He cannot rid NATO from his their station near Russian shores nor gain allegiance from the former Russian satellites. He is victim of an age in which there are many dictators but none the ruler of an Empire. Even Ukraine, that once did the bidding at Russia's beck-and-call resists takeover by some puppet regime Putin might otherwise establish, possibly waiting in the wings. Today, the small state of Ukraine resists his power that rules now the Crimea but now not in Ukraine's capital.
Burn's exhortation to us all: Don't give up on Russia after Putin.
------------------------------
Remarkable to witness the establishment of a caretaker government--really, that's what Putin is President of. The Russian government faltered under Yeltsin after the Empire collapsed, then Putin was installed; and his dicta have been followed ever since, making him a very rich man with several palatial estates.
There could be no rapprochement with the West afterward because Russia is the land of the Czars--the elegance of aristocrat-dominated Europe. The best in music, ballet and opera. A heritage that should not be cast aside to become embroiled in a market economy of an up-and-down stock market and risky future. I saw Russia first-hand in the 1990s during the demise of the Empire; and it was depressing to see.
Who came on the scene early during the changeover was the Mafia--Burns has it right. People were hungry and disparate for a staple existence. And, I believe that early on in Putin's government the people did well in recovering. But then he longed for more; he longed for what only an Empire resurrected would give him. To him, Russia became his resource for personal attainment of Czar status, even when there was no czar any longer.
When you look upon his face you see a depressed man (at least, I do)! When I was there, everybody knew oil was there in the ground for production and selling. Their future was not gloom and doom; but nor was it that other nations' would do obeisance to a tarnished star.
Today, he is floundering, yet popular among his people. He cannot rid NATO from his their station near Russian shores nor gain allegiance from the former Russian satellites. He is victim of an age in which there are many dictators but none the ruler of an Empire. Even Ukraine, that once did the bidding at Russia's beck-and-call resists takeover by some puppet regime Putin might otherwise establish, possibly waiting in the wings. Today, the small state of Ukraine resists his power that rules now the Crimea but now not in Ukraine's capital.
Burn's exhortation to us all: Don't give up on Russia after Putin.
Wednesday, May 8, 2019
Atlantic article about kelptocracy: "The (wealthy) Russians have been coming and coming still with their money!"
In the Atlantic magazine February, 2019 issue, the article by Franklin Foer "Russian-Style Keptocracy Is Infiltrating America" appeared. It alludes to the fact that since the fall of the Russian Empire in the early 1990s, the wealthy class of Russia has slowly been emigrating to foreign lands for permanent residence, including to the US. And, I've, myself, seen colonies of Russians here in the states in such places as Santa Barbara, California; Sacramento, Los Angeles, Reno, DC; and Omaha, Nebraska!
When the Russians reach here, they naturally look for places to stash their cash. The article points out that the most likely professionals they contact here are investment counseling and real estate brokers. Naturally, they go to these people, hoping that they can find ways to minimize their tax liabilities and maximize their chances to increase their fortunes. Came to my mind, as I read on, was the name Paul Manafort, the former Campaign Manager for President Trump. He had financial dealings with Russian aristocrats; and wasn't he into investment brokering? Anyway, I imagined these emigres would seek out business people in the US that had clients also back home in Russia. And I suspect that these investment bankers in the States would do all they could to make a profit both for some Russian client now living here and themselves--whether or not it would take clever machinations in politics and finance to assure the financial transactions were legal; and even if a keptocarcy were seeping onto the halls of Congress and into the woodwork of various departments of the Administration.
When the Russians reach here, they naturally look for places to stash their cash. The article points out that the most likely professionals they contact here are investment counseling and real estate brokers. Naturally, they go to these people, hoping that they can find ways to minimize their tax liabilities and maximize their chances to increase their fortunes. Came to my mind, as I read on, was the name Paul Manafort, the former Campaign Manager for President Trump. He had financial dealings with Russian aristocrats; and wasn't he into investment brokering? Anyway, I imagined these emigres would seek out business people in the US that had clients also back home in Russia. And I suspect that these investment bankers in the States would do all they could to make a profit both for some Russian client now living here and themselves--whether or not it would take clever machinations in politics and finance to assure the financial transactions were legal; and even if a keptocarcy were seeping onto the halls of Congress and into the woodwork of various departments of the Administration.
Friday, May 3, 2019
The Military is a Country's Reliance when all else fails!
I've come to believe that the military must be filled with people who are the strongest patriots a country has! It certainly was true in the US' founding, led by that greatest of patriots, George Washington. Of course, he had to believe in the institution of government he was forming.
Venezuela--I've been following even before Chavez and Lopez took over. I think the Venezuelans might take as a case in point how Columbia eventually got the many warring factions, including the ne'r-do-wells, to work in unison for the country's good. I believe the factions in Venezuela would do well to get together in common accord to work for the people and goals of their country. Chavez came to power because of the voice of the common Venezuelan over the protests of the ruling class of rich and prominent. He established a record of making oil available to poor countries; and the riches of the country were distributed among those in poverty. The country has gone into political and economic chaos; and changes must be made. Maduro must work with his foes for the sake of the country's stability, a longed-for condition to be quickly re-established.
The military has stood behind him, to be sure. But they must do more: they must themselves become the source and the ground-swell of the country's stability, recognizing that because the country is oil rich, virtually every group that can will try to seize the country's wealth and establish among themselves an heir to the Presidency.
It truly is up to the military; as has been the case in Egypt, Turkey, Israel, and for centuries, the United States to establish tranquility and fight to protect its integrity and order.
Venezuela--I've been following even before Chavez and Lopez took over. I think the Venezuelans might take as a case in point how Columbia eventually got the many warring factions, including the ne'r-do-wells, to work in unison for the country's good. I believe the factions in Venezuela would do well to get together in common accord to work for the people and goals of their country. Chavez came to power because of the voice of the common Venezuelan over the protests of the ruling class of rich and prominent. He established a record of making oil available to poor countries; and the riches of the country were distributed among those in poverty. The country has gone into political and economic chaos; and changes must be made. Maduro must work with his foes for the sake of the country's stability, a longed-for condition to be quickly re-established.
The military has stood behind him, to be sure. But they must do more: they must themselves become the source and the ground-swell of the country's stability, recognizing that because the country is oil rich, virtually every group that can will try to seize the country's wealth and establish among themselves an heir to the Presidency.
It truly is up to the military; as has been the case in Egypt, Turkey, Israel, and for centuries, the United States to establish tranquility and fight to protect its integrity and order.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)