Bowden in this article discusses the military essential concept to understanding the military's role in establishing peace where there is conflict and destruction of life and property: it is to get the disputants to lay down their arms and start talking towards realizing a utopia--you said it--towards making peace. That movement towards reconciliation and ending hostilities is in military terms, an ethios. Through the display of military values of peace in time of war, factions can become embued with the cause of peace, making war less desirable and less likely to bring about what they want from war.
The military recognize the values they must carry with them whether or not in war is the embodiment of the pursuit of peace. Virtually apolitical, they want people to live together in harmony with one another, in peace. President Trump says the United States has been pursuing through its State Department a perpetual display of our military might throughout the world, fanning the flames of a worldwide conflagration through endless wars.
To my mind, US foreign policy has been evolving certainly since the end of World War II, such that its leaders, including the military, have come to realize they all must have in mind the same ends-in-view even before going to war. That means, the military should be involved before preparing to go to war in knowing what the war's end would bring about: the goal or end-in-view war should achieve. Putting in the hands of political live-wires what a war would accomplish is a sign that the war is already being conceived by those with clouded judgment. Good judgment is to freely own up to the world condition that war itself would destructively wraught upon humanity. The wisdom of seasoned generals must be brought into the planning for war and knowing what a desired peace at its termination would bring about.
How to emphasize the military ethios among those who would bring about peace? Trump simply uttered, "I am living up to my campaign promise: I'll bring back our troops from foreign areas of conflict we have no interest in pursuing a peace for. We have no vision of a lasting peace for that region.
In Syria, he is attempting to bring about a peace in which the peaceful state satisfies the political and regional ambitions of the Russians, the Turks, possibly some Kurds, but in no way brings about a world of greater peace where communal living together among those who were in combat has been achieved.
The United States Military has bases and installations in over 190 countries, and by their presence are able to encourage peace and cooperation among the many peoples with their own cultures and backgrounds. Promoting peace by suggesting how hostile parties can sit down and reason together towards peace--material prosperity and long-life--is a role the US military can and should do, for there is no organization dedicated toward peace and the absence of war yet armed with its armor to establish governmental order and stability wherever needed as our military in the service of our people. To be sure, the US as a significant promoter of business and trade accepts its responsibilities to promote peace with a view to expand trade worldwide and thereby foster the financial well-being of its citizenry.
For there can be no certain trade and commerce in regions of the globe where peace does not exist.
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
Cato Institute: Book Review--"Fuel to the Fire: How Trump Made America's Broken Foreign Policy Even Worse" by Glaser et al
The three writers of this volume--John Glaser, Christopher Preble both of Cato, A. Trevor Thrall, Professor, George Mason University--were on hand to discuss their work at the Cato Institute, Washington, DC, October 21, 2019; Heather Hurlburt, New America, the Commentator.
These authors see Trump's attempt at a consistent foreign policy as a reaction to a prevailing doctrine in the State Department with its dealings in international affairs that they identified as the Doctrine of Primacy. According to it, the US military is given primacy right when the US State Department endeavors to offer solution to an international political problem occurring somewhere in the world. Trump, while preferring his own doctrine not named in the discussion but appears to be that of the "great man" to "great man" means to resolve conflicts and disputes among nations and political movements such that these men and they alone can establish global rules and edicts through their unified pronouncements that will end international conflict.
We've had at least 30 years of Primacy Diplomacy; and the net result they report is worldwide dissatisfaction with war as an appropriate method to resolve international conflict, they report. Despite offering his own doctrine, he nevertheless is willing to go along with the current thesis to some degree as long as other nations do so, indicating their support for it by their annual contributions to some military--whether to the US military or to their own particular country that has joined with the US in battle. Trump's support of the Saudi solution to the Yemen civil war is justified with his comment, "The Saudis pay us for the weaponry we make for them." To these authors, the doctrine that's been adopted by the US all these long years isn't working well; and they seem to endorse Trump's project to bring the US troops home as indicating his displeasure with the doctrine in vogue.
But to my mind, there are reasons for US military to be present in some advisory capacity, rather than in battle ready mode, around the world--e.g., in Afghanistan to encourage the Kabul government to continue to allow the education of women, and in Syria to support the Kurdish people to remain living there. These force levels are indeed negligible but send a message of US humanitarian goodwill and moral determination to help do what we can to make the world a better place.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My ponderings on Trump's Diplomacy Style...
This discussion never really broached Trump's clear attempt at what I have called for present purposes, a "Great Man" to "Great Man" resolution of international conflicts. For he seems to advocate through his attempts at diplomacy that if only individuals with enormous power or world prominence in politics (in most cases because of their leadership of countries with vast amounts of oil and gas reserves--governing over the countries of the United States, Saudi Arabia and their OPEC organization, Russia and its former satellite Ukraine, and Venezuela, presently under Russian protection) get together e.g., by phone, Twitter, or in-person meeting, whatever ails in the political realm can be quickly and satisfactorily handled to the world's great delight. He would extend this "greatness" appellation also to the leaders of Israel and Turkey, apparently, and perhaps also to the Mexican President.
These authors see Trump's attempt at a consistent foreign policy as a reaction to a prevailing doctrine in the State Department with its dealings in international affairs that they identified as the Doctrine of Primacy. According to it, the US military is given primacy right when the US State Department endeavors to offer solution to an international political problem occurring somewhere in the world. Trump, while preferring his own doctrine not named in the discussion but appears to be that of the "great man" to "great man" means to resolve conflicts and disputes among nations and political movements such that these men and they alone can establish global rules and edicts through their unified pronouncements that will end international conflict.
We've had at least 30 years of Primacy Diplomacy; and the net result they report is worldwide dissatisfaction with war as an appropriate method to resolve international conflict, they report. Despite offering his own doctrine, he nevertheless is willing to go along with the current thesis to some degree as long as other nations do so, indicating their support for it by their annual contributions to some military--whether to the US military or to their own particular country that has joined with the US in battle. Trump's support of the Saudi solution to the Yemen civil war is justified with his comment, "The Saudis pay us for the weaponry we make for them." To these authors, the doctrine that's been adopted by the US all these long years isn't working well; and they seem to endorse Trump's project to bring the US troops home as indicating his displeasure with the doctrine in vogue.
But to my mind, there are reasons for US military to be present in some advisory capacity, rather than in battle ready mode, around the world--e.g., in Afghanistan to encourage the Kabul government to continue to allow the education of women, and in Syria to support the Kurdish people to remain living there. These force levels are indeed negligible but send a message of US humanitarian goodwill and moral determination to help do what we can to make the world a better place.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My ponderings on Trump's Diplomacy Style...
This discussion never really broached Trump's clear attempt at what I have called for present purposes, a "Great Man" to "Great Man" resolution of international conflicts. For he seems to advocate through his attempts at diplomacy that if only individuals with enormous power or world prominence in politics (in most cases because of their leadership of countries with vast amounts of oil and gas reserves--governing over the countries of the United States, Saudi Arabia and their OPEC organization, Russia and its former satellite Ukraine, and Venezuela, presently under Russian protection) get together e.g., by phone, Twitter, or in-person meeting, whatever ails in the political realm can be quickly and satisfactorily handled to the world's great delight. He would extend this "greatness" appellation also to the leaders of Israel and Turkey, apparently, and perhaps also to the Mexican President.
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
Cato Institute: Book Review of "NATO: The Dangerous Dinosaur" by Ted G. Carpenter
Moderator for this event was John Glasen, Director of Foreign Policy Studies, Cato. The meeting was held at Cato, October 18, 2019, Washington, DC. Commenting on the book was Professor Rajas Menon of City College of New York.
What appeared evident as the book was taken up in discussion, was the resiliency of this 'dinosaur.' Originally it was conceived to bolster military support for the entire of Europe as delineated up through the eastern edge of Germany. Then it included Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, and even Poland. Now, because it has provided support to Ukraine, it goes to the very border of Russia. This latter feature is a violation of Russia's implicit sphere of influence in the area, pointed out the author, Mr. Carpenter of Cato.
What does NATO do that specific nations of Europe can't do on their own, anyway? someone asked. Be it noted, that the United States is the command control nation of what NATO does, irrespective of Trump's insistence that the nations in NATO must meet their fair share of costs incurred in maintaining the organization, commentator Menon noted.
----------------------------------------------------------
Personal reaction: The presence of NATO throughout Europe and up to Russia's territory, provides the countries formerly subservient to the USSR to declare 'NO' to Russian domination in European and Central European affairs! And continue their self-determined independence they declared in 1991!
What appeared evident as the book was taken up in discussion, was the resiliency of this 'dinosaur.' Originally it was conceived to bolster military support for the entire of Europe as delineated up through the eastern edge of Germany. Then it included Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, and even Poland. Now, because it has provided support to Ukraine, it goes to the very border of Russia. This latter feature is a violation of Russia's implicit sphere of influence in the area, pointed out the author, Mr. Carpenter of Cato.
What does NATO do that specific nations of Europe can't do on their own, anyway? someone asked. Be it noted, that the United States is the command control nation of what NATO does, irrespective of Trump's insistence that the nations in NATO must meet their fair share of costs incurred in maintaining the organization, commentator Menon noted.
----------------------------------------------------------
Personal reaction: The presence of NATO throughout Europe and up to Russia's territory, provides the countries formerly subservient to the USSR to declare 'NO' to Russian domination in European and Central European affairs! And continue their self-determined independence they declared in 1991!
Brookings Institution: Panel Discussion on the future of work in Africa
It's about harnessing the potential of digital technologies. The meeting was held at Brookings, Washington, October 17, 2019. Brookings Fellow Brahima S. Coulibaly and World Bank Executive Director Jean-Claude Tchatchouang introduced a panel who worked on a Report of 2019 on the implications for jobs in Africa of the changing nature of work in the digital era of AI in which we live. Presenting the report's findings were Mark Andrew Dutz and Zainab Usman of World Bank. Members of the report team joined the discussion: Jieun Choi, Mary Hallward-Driemeier, Albert Zeufack, all of World-Bank; Lemma W. Senbet, Professor, University of Maryland; and Tricida Williams of Mastercard Corporation.
The thrust of the report was to call for a unified demand for innovation and creativity in the use of the computer given the impending dramatic increase in computer power particularly for the hand-held computer. It also stressed the need for countries in Africa to prepare for emergence of AI intensive usage, citing the need for the country of Chad, as an example, to vastly increase its ability to generate electricity. As reliance on the digital computer will increase perhaps as much as a hundred fold, so will human productivity, one panelist noted.
And, these jobs will increase salaries of the low-income worker, added Mr. Dutz.
However, while the report listed how Africaners interested in job increase should respond to anticipated rapid innovation, it assumed that the way is clear for digital innovation and program development. However, during the Q &A segment (and at a Congressional committee meeting on the computerization by youth in the US the day before), complaints against large computer giants who generate innovative programs and code were iterated--centering around the refusal of these corporations to share their innovative code and procedures with the computerworld, citing patent security.
This is the same problem that China seems to be currently lodging against the American computer giants. This despite the apparent fact that early on in the infancy of the field, the government insisted that IBM make known to those involved in creating software, i.e., the general public, their processes and code, so that other programs could be created that would make use of them as platforms.
The thrust of the report was to call for a unified demand for innovation and creativity in the use of the computer given the impending dramatic increase in computer power particularly for the hand-held computer. It also stressed the need for countries in Africa to prepare for emergence of AI intensive usage, citing the need for the country of Chad, as an example, to vastly increase its ability to generate electricity. As reliance on the digital computer will increase perhaps as much as a hundred fold, so will human productivity, one panelist noted.
And, these jobs will increase salaries of the low-income worker, added Mr. Dutz.
However, while the report listed how Africaners interested in job increase should respond to anticipated rapid innovation, it assumed that the way is clear for digital innovation and program development. However, during the Q &A segment (and at a Congressional committee meeting on the computerization by youth in the US the day before), complaints against large computer giants who generate innovative programs and code were iterated--centering around the refusal of these corporations to share their innovative code and procedures with the computerworld, citing patent security.
This is the same problem that China seems to be currently lodging against the American computer giants. This despite the apparent fact that early on in the infancy of the field, the government insisted that IBM make known to those involved in creating software, i.e., the general public, their processes and code, so that other programs could be created that would make use of them as platforms.
Friday, October 11, 2019
Tribal Roots in the Sanctuary Cities of US
The civilizations dating far into the past recognize the value of the soil--literally, our roots--ingrained into our existing as human beings. China is one cultural heritage that preserves the relationship between our physical existence and the geographical location of our life through the notion of the tribe or immediate interactions of self and our community. The tribe is indeed an inherent aspect of one's self-identity. That's the notion that the framers of the US Constitution sought to give due homage to in limiting the importance of the vote in elections such that the geographical location of the voter must be factored into the election process in a presidential election through a mechanism known as 'the electoral college.'
In essence, this is the metaphysical principle that where you are is how you live! The tribe is truly the existential you!
A declared sanctuary city, I believe, exemplifies and points to our tribal awareness of local independence whenever our very day-to-day existence is overlooked by some governmental agency or entity, such as the federal government, itself. For it looks upon itself as the local and immediate organization of people practicing ways endemic to the area, that particular locale. It aims to declare what its local cultural ways are, which are special and identifiable features of its own region. It just is the case that Latinos live in a particular part of Texas and this pertains to them whether or not the federal government classifies any particular Latino as 'illegal' or 'legal,' for instance--which are mere temporary or transient descriptions regarding one's status bestowed by the agency or government.
Importantly, in long-lasting civilizations, the tribe is a fundamental unit of community. Each tribe must be recognized and each respected, so that one or another 'tribe' is not singled out as the epitome of the governmental entity. Christians are not to be the 'tribe' of the United States, such that it is regarded as a Christian nation. All religious persons must be respected quite independent of each's religious conviction.
In essence, this is the metaphysical principle that where you are is how you live! The tribe is truly the existential you!
A declared sanctuary city, I believe, exemplifies and points to our tribal awareness of local independence whenever our very day-to-day existence is overlooked by some governmental agency or entity, such as the federal government, itself. For it looks upon itself as the local and immediate organization of people practicing ways endemic to the area, that particular locale. It aims to declare what its local cultural ways are, which are special and identifiable features of its own region. It just is the case that Latinos live in a particular part of Texas and this pertains to them whether or not the federal government classifies any particular Latino as 'illegal' or 'legal,' for instance--which are mere temporary or transient descriptions regarding one's status bestowed by the agency or government.
Importantly, in long-lasting civilizations, the tribe is a fundamental unit of community. Each tribe must be recognized and each respected, so that one or another 'tribe' is not singled out as the epitome of the governmental entity. Christians are not to be the 'tribe' of the United States, such that it is regarded as a Christian nation. All religious persons must be respected quite independent of each's religious conviction.
Wednesday, October 9, 2019
"China, 'Now that we're in love!'"--Seminar-3
The song title says it succinctly. We are sons and daughters of God, all equal in His sight.
According to President Trump, the song title suggests that any son or daughter of his is a member of his family. A son who's down on his luck and asks for money from his father to get back on his feet--father Trump would seemingly offer it immediately--no questions asked. Or would he do what he may have asked of the Ukrainians--"Do exactly as I say before you get anything from me, for I am the President of the United States"?
That our leaders of past years in their dealings with China have cajoled China to join the WTO and to endeavor to live up to its rules governing international trade by extending financial inducement ought not to thereby enable Trump to specifically make demands upon China that only seasoned countries in globalization could be expected to live up to. The point is, the United States has been involved in educating and bringing along in a spirit of mutual love and respect countries, such as China, that for centuries endured their citizenry treated as subservients and virtual slaves to those living in the advanced nations. It is in that spirit of love that the master welcomed back his prodigal son (recorded in the Bible). Just so, the US has extended throughout its history aid and financial benefits to its 'backward' trading partners as part of its mission-ing (="bearing witness") to Third World nations--with whom it extends the familial hand of fellowship. (It certainly did so done during the take-down of the Russian Empire in the 1990s to the joy of the Russian satellite countries!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NBA players in China
Similarly, as the NBA extends its reach into China, it ought not to demand that Chinese living in China declare an allegiance to democratic principles; but it should regard its venture into Chinese acculturation as an opportunity to perform on and off the court in ways that bespeak the players' dedication to practicing democracy in real-life affairs for the Chinese fans to witness.
According to President Trump, the song title suggests that any son or daughter of his is a member of his family. A son who's down on his luck and asks for money from his father to get back on his feet--father Trump would seemingly offer it immediately--no questions asked. Or would he do what he may have asked of the Ukrainians--"Do exactly as I say before you get anything from me, for I am the President of the United States"?
That our leaders of past years in their dealings with China have cajoled China to join the WTO and to endeavor to live up to its rules governing international trade by extending financial inducement ought not to thereby enable Trump to specifically make demands upon China that only seasoned countries in globalization could be expected to live up to. The point is, the United States has been involved in educating and bringing along in a spirit of mutual love and respect countries, such as China, that for centuries endured their citizenry treated as subservients and virtual slaves to those living in the advanced nations. It is in that spirit of love that the master welcomed back his prodigal son (recorded in the Bible). Just so, the US has extended throughout its history aid and financial benefits to its 'backward' trading partners as part of its mission-ing (="bearing witness") to Third World nations--with whom it extends the familial hand of fellowship. (It certainly did so done during the take-down of the Russian Empire in the 1990s to the joy of the Russian satellite countries!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NBA players in China
Similarly, as the NBA extends its reach into China, it ought not to demand that Chinese living in China declare an allegiance to democratic principles; but it should regard its venture into Chinese acculturation as an opportunity to perform on and off the court in ways that bespeak the players' dedication to practicing democracy in real-life affairs for the Chinese fans to witness.
Saturday, October 5, 2019
What President Trump has taught the US about its presidency: it borders on Monarchical Rule!
What with the abundance of Executive Orders that Trump has issued, permitting him to circumvent the Congressional stamp, and his ability to redirect funds that Congress has already earmarked, and the cavalier manner he can control the setting of tariffs and their levels; and the capricious direction he can give to those who manage our borders, the President is displaying an enthusiastic leap to become the first US King--not in name but in stature. He even uses tariffs to cajole other countries to do his bidding--e.g., Mexico's deal with him to prevent an escalation of tariffs of goods from Mexico.
And he pooh-poohs in defiance the pleas of Congress to permit them to perform Congressional oversight of his Administration.
Can the Democrats prevent this from becoming a usual way Presidents are to act in the future--Presidents who would be donned a kingly potentate--in power though not in name?
And he pooh-poohs in defiance the pleas of Congress to permit them to perform Congressional oversight of his Administration.
Can the Democrats prevent this from becoming a usual way Presidents are to act in the future--Presidents who would be donned a kingly potentate--in power though not in name?
When a government has failed to represent people in its domain...-Seminar 2
For whatever reason, a region of a country may declare itself an autonomous country within a country, i.e., a state within a larger geographical area controlled by some federal government.
I believe such is the present situation of Eastern Ukaine in the country of Ukraine. It is my understanding that the President of Ukraine is permitting the Eastern Ukrainians to vote on the matter. When I was in Russia during the drawing up of a new constitution for the Russian Federation of Independent States in 1989, I argued that there should be provision for autonomy of regions who want to maintain a separateness within the larger state's territory, so long as that region is financially viable to maintain an independent status and find suitable means for the protection of its citizens within from invasion, etc.
Then too, I believe that the province containing the city of Barcelona in Spain is also currently seeking an independent, autonomous standing with possible EU membership. The general idea being that a peoples should find a suitable means for representation of its culture and heritage in the governmental structure of the region where they live.
In the country of Georgia, I think the Russians govern a portion and provide military support for those who live therein. Moldova, too, might have such autonomous pockets.
----------------------------------
Parenthetically, I have argued regarding the Crimea, that since Ukraine received the region as a by-product of a somewhat arbitrary assignment by diplomats, it could reasonably be made a legitimate part of Russia, itself, if the citizens of Crimea so want.
I believe such is the present situation of Eastern Ukaine in the country of Ukraine. It is my understanding that the President of Ukraine is permitting the Eastern Ukrainians to vote on the matter. When I was in Russia during the drawing up of a new constitution for the Russian Federation of Independent States in 1989, I argued that there should be provision for autonomy of regions who want to maintain a separateness within the larger state's territory, so long as that region is financially viable to maintain an independent status and find suitable means for the protection of its citizens within from invasion, etc.
Then too, I believe that the province containing the city of Barcelona in Spain is also currently seeking an independent, autonomous standing with possible EU membership. The general idea being that a peoples should find a suitable means for representation of its culture and heritage in the governmental structure of the region where they live.
In the country of Georgia, I think the Russians govern a portion and provide military support for those who live therein. Moldova, too, might have such autonomous pockets.
----------------------------------
Parenthetically, I have argued regarding the Crimea, that since Ukraine received the region as a by-product of a somewhat arbitrary assignment by diplomats, it could reasonably be made a legitimate part of Russia, itself, if the citizens of Crimea so want.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)