Silicon Investor - Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

[roto] Elsewhere, I thank you for your good reply. I hope your day is well.

roto — 10/25/2021 1:40:02 AM

[Elsewhere] Many posters active two decades ago are no longer around. Colin Powell's death ...

Elsewhere — 10/19/2021 7:44:40 PM

Many posters active two decades ago are no longer around.

Colin Powell's death on Oct. 18 reminded me of this board.
wsj.com

I posted the text of his UN speech on Feb. 5, 2003 here.
Message 18539048

There is a different set of topics on the agenda now.

[roto] it's most unfortunate that this thread is dormant

roto — 10/19/2021 4:36:05 PM

[Sun Tzu] My last word on that article. He is too forgiving of the past US mistakes, and ...

Sun Tzu — 11/27/2020 4:19:13 PM

My last word on that article. He is too forgiving of the past US mistakes, and he is of course very partisan (as should be expected of a political appointee). BUT, his diagnosis and remedy are dead on the money. Importantly, he is right that viewed properly, the US exceptionalism means that the US has exceptional abilities to make the world a better place and that this power should take the form of enlightened self interest. After all, the problems that the US faces are beyond America's ability to address single handedly, and even if they could be, it would be too expensive. Leadership is not about doing it solo. Nor is it about dictating terms.

As I consider which country could be the next global leader, I cannot find any candidates that are better suited than America. Neither the EU nor China (and certainly not Russia) have the right psychological make up and culture to lead the world to a win-win environment.

Unfortunately, the US record has been spotty at best - most notably under GWB and Trump who each took extreme positions on the US Exceptionalism, albeit in opposite directions and neither has been right. But the Democrats globalism agenda has not been wise either.

[Sun Tzu] A well reasoned article that calls for a more honest and pragmatic national secu...

Sun Tzu — 11/27/2020 7:48:40 AM

A well reasoned article that calls for a more honest and pragmatic national security and foreign policy strategy without abandoning American leadership and ideals. I'll be very happy if it ever happens.

============

The United States was fashioned not from a territory or tribe but from a set of ideas. The Founders proclaimed the values of liberty and equality. They established the supremacy of “We the People.” Although their worldview incorporated racist and sexist elements—the legacy of which continues to roil American society today—they also anticipated progress toward “a more perfect union.” Establishing a state based on ideas was itself exceptional.

Crucially, the Founders believed not just in individual rights but in the common good. They were not small-d democrats but rather small-r republicans. They embraced the notion of interdependence—that human beings have shared interests and need institutions to pursue those interests, and that liberty can be preserved only through such institutions. They believed that a good society is the product of active citizenship combined with responsible and virtuous leadership. And they viewed these truths as universal—the United States was not coming into existence to rise and fall as other powers had, but rather to transform the world.

The United States cannot expect to lead if it is offering only pragmatism, and not aspiration.The current moment calls for a new form of patriotism—for citizens of all political stripes to embrace a sense of national pride based on America’s founding ideas...It will also require a renewed belief in the power of American values in the world.

I can imagine two types of readers rolling their eyes. One group will ask why we should make values a priority at all, rather than simply securing our interests. But as the late John McCain once noted, “It is foolish to view reason and idealism as incompatible or to consider our power and wealth as encumbered by the demands of justice, morality, and conscience.” A place for values in the conduct of foreign policy is built into the character of a country founded on ideas. It is also essential to our interests, because freer, less corrupt, more open societies are less likely to threaten America’s way of life. Moreover, the U.S. cannot expect to lead if it is offering only pragmatism, and not aspiration. It can’t necessarily outbid China, which has much more cash to spend abroad, but it can out-persuade and out-inspire.

The other group will call out the many times that the United States has not acted on its asserted ideals. The theologian Reinhold Niebuhr reminds us why this will always be so: “Hypocrisy and pretension are the inevitable concomitants of the engagement between morals and politics,” he wrote, adding, “They do not arise where no effort is made to bring the power impulse of politics under the control of conscience.” American leaders after Trump do not need to make categorical claims that place values above every other consideration. They should be more honest and more precise, but no less proud. Values have been a genuine consideration in the weighing of interests, and the U.S. has tried far more than other great powers to take them into account. This is rare and impressive enough. Proceeding from this basis, a new American exceptionalism can more consistently, if more modestly, secure a place for values in the conduct of foreign policy.

theatlantic.com

[Sun Tzu] That is the most sane piece of FA strategy piece that I have read in a long time...

Sun Tzu — 11/27/2020 6:10:22 AM

That is the most sane piece of FA strategy piece that I have read in a long time...which I cynically assume will be ignored...It is a good read with some very practical solutions and positions.

[Sun Tzu] What Donald Trump and Dick Cheney Got Wrong About AmericaWe allowed an important...

Sun Tzu — 11/27/2020 6:08:22 AM

What Donald Trump and Dick Cheney Got Wrong About AmericaWe allowed an important idea—American exceptionalism—to be hijacked and misused. Now we need to rescue that idea and let it guide America at home and abroad.

Justin Fantl

Story by Jake Sullivan
January/February 2019 Issue
Politics

Excerpts from the article: theatlantic.com

Young people have been exposed to a particularly arrogant brand of exceptionalism. Many of them aren’t naturally inclined to see American foreign policy through a lens of optimism or aspiration. I hear this in my classes, and I see it in surveys that reveal a strong generational divide over the idea of “American exceptionalism.” Large numbers of young people question the merits of a unique American leadership role in world affairs.This is partly because they have seen the country’s foreign policy so frequently fall short. But I suspect it is also because they have been exposed to a particularly arrogant brand of exceptionalism. For example, Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz published a book a few years ago called Exceptional, in which they boast of America’s unmatched “goodness” and “greatness”—conceding nothing, admitting no error. In their telling, the Vietnam and Iraq Wars were sound strategic decisions. George W. Bush’s administration’s use of torture was right; its critics were wrong. And on and on. Young people hear these kinds of arguments and say, Count us out.

Meanwhile, older generations are tilting toward a different outlook: the United States as the world’s No. 1 sucker. It’s time, many believe, to stop shouldering the burdens and letting others enjoy the benefits. This is Trump’s vision of “America first.” He is hostile toward America’s allies and contemptuous of cooperation. He loves to goad and bully (and even bomb) other countries and says alarming and irresponsible things about nuclear war. He has pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, the Paris climate agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and more. He is not preaching isolationism; he is preaching predatory unilateralism.

American exceptionalism has meant different things to different people at different times: the unique geographic advantages of the continent, the story of the Revolution and the writing of the Constitution, the legacy of the frontier, the impulse to universalize the American experience. Some have taken this to an extreme, asserting that America is blessed by divine providence.

There is a common thread: the idea that the United States has a set of characteristics that gives it a unique capacity and responsibility to help make the world a better place.

The foreign-policy community’s traditional response to that question has been to describe America as the world’s “indispensable nation.” That is no longer sufficient. By itself, indispensability is more wearying than energizing—it’s the boy in the Hans Brinker story, holding back the flood by putting his finger in the dike. It speaks to fulfilling others’ needs, not one’s own. And it comes with no limits.

The core purpose of American foreign policy must be to protect and defend the American way of life. This raises the obvious challenge that the very definition of the American way of life is currently up for grabs. No vision of American exceptionalism can succeed if the United States does not defeat the emerging vision that emphasizes ethnic and cultural identity and restore a more hopeful and inclusive definition: a healthy democracy, shared economic prosperity, and security and freedom for all citizens to follow the paths they choose. This requires domestic renewal above all, with energetic responses at home to the rise of tribalism and the hollowing-out of the middle class. Foreign policy can support that renewal, while dealing effectively with external threats.

These fall into two categories. The first emanate from other countries, specifically the major powers: There is China’s long-term strategy to dominate the fastest-growing part of the world, to make the global economy adjust to its brand of authoritarian capitalism, and above all to put pressure on free and open economic and political models. And there is Russia’s pursuit of a related strategy to spread neofascist ideology and destabilize Western democracies. The threats in the second category are those that transcend national borders: the spread of weapons of mass destruction; deadly epidemics like Ebola; irreversible planetary harm caused by climate change; another global economic meltdown; and massive cyberattacks.

All of these have the potential to cripple America as we know it. Here’s the kicker: None of them can be effectively confronted by the United States alone, and none can be effectively confronted if the United States sits on the sidelines.

The fact that the major powers have not returned to war with one another since 1945 is a remarkable achievement of American statecraft.
A national idea like American exceptionalism will fail, however, if it is neither plausible nor well defined. We should therefore identify the distinctive attributes of the United States, explain how to revive and reinforce them, and prescribe how to put them to work in foreign policy.

The first of those attributes has been a recognition that the best and most durable solutions are ones in which America’s gain also contributes to gains by others. From the republican ideas of the Founders—in particular, from their notion of interdependence—flows an attitude. Alexis de Tocqueville called it “self-interest rightly understood.” Today, we might call it positive-sum thinking.

This attitude guided America’s grand strategy after the Second World War, as the U.S. rebuilt vanquished foes, protected the sea lanes, and responded to natural disasters halfway around the world. For centuries, European states waged war with grim regularity. The fact that the major powers have not returned to war with one another since 1945 is a remarkable achievement of American statecraft. Meanwhile, China’s extraordinary development was the result not of failures in U.S. foreign policy but of its successes. The U.S. maintained the security that helped drive remarkable economic growth across the Asia-Pacific region.

This is why so many observers around the world fear American retreat more than they fear American domination. During my time in the Obama administration, when I talked with counterparts in the Middle East or East Asia, I often heard a litany of complaints about things the United States had done—punctuated by a demand that the United States do more. It reminded me of the classic restaurant joke: “The food here is terrible … and such small portions!”

We live in a country full of problem-solvers, in a world full of problems.At some level, most of the world knows that America’s positive-sum approach is valuable and unusual. At a gathering of Asian nations in 2011, I heard the Chinese foreign minister address the issue of Beijing’s ambitions in the South China Sea this way: “China is a big country, and other countries here are small countries. Think hard about that.” This is China’s way, and Russia’s way. It generally has not been America’s way.

The second key attribute of American exceptionalism is a can-do spirit. We live in a country full of problem-solvers, in a world full of problems. The historian Frederick Jackson Turner’s famous “frontier thesis” described Americans as having a “practical, inventive turn of mind, quick to find expedients.” For the past 70 years, a habit of problem-solving has defined America’s role in the world.

Americans may like to solve problems, but which problems should they be trying to solve? The answer cannot be all of them, everywhere. As the Harvard economist Michael Porter has pointed out, “The essence of strategy is choosing what not to do.” America’s priorities should consist of the list I outlined earlier—challenges that legitimately threaten its way of life. Americans should throw every ounce of their problem-solving weight against those threats.

Too often, the U.S. succumbs to the temptation to go toe-to-toe with adversaries in situations where they have an advantage. For example, when the Chinese military started building on rocks and reefs in the South China Sea, the U.S. jumped up and down even though it could do little to stop the construction short of using military force, which it was not prepared to do. The U.S. ended up looking weak. Worse, it let the measure of success become something other than its vital interest, which is not those rocks and reefs. Its vital interest is the freedom of navigation for commercial and military ships. The U.S. can enforce that interest by increasing naval operations in the area and getting its partners to do the same, demonstrating that the world rejects China’s claims to these waters and forcing Beijing to decide whether to stop us.

Finally, the relationship between America’s interests at home and its interests abroad must always be kept in mind. Obama, listening to his national-security team ask for more money for Afghanistan, would shake his head and point out that he was the only person in the room who had to think about all the things we were not spending money on at home. This should not be about guns versus butter, but about what will position America to compete effectively—especially with China, which is now poised to out-invest the U.S. in technological innovation and R&D.

It should also be about where the middle class fits into America’s foreign-policy priorities. The erosion of America’s middle class is sapping the nation’s strength. The main causes lie in domestic policy, but foreign policy bears responsibility as well.

During the Obama administration, when the national-security team sat around the Situation Room table, we rarely posed the question What will this mean for the middle class? Many other countries have made economic growth that expands the middle class a key organizing principle of their foreign policy. The American people want their leaders to do the same: to focus on how strength abroad can contribute to a strong economic foundation at home, and not just vice versa.

As a starting point, the U.S. must define what counts as its “economic interest,” looking beyond generic GDP growth in order to understand the impact of specific policies on corporations and communities. Who are the real winners and losers? I recall working on a diplomatic effort for an American firm that wanted to close an energy deal in Europe, which the State Department saw as a potential “win.” We later learned that the company planned to import materials from other countries, not the United States. Whose interests, exactly, were we serving? Whose interests are we serving by putting diplomatic muscle into helping companies like Walmart open stores in India?

America’s trade and investment strategies should place less emphasis on making the world safe for corporate investment and more emphasis on international tax and anti-corruption policies that target drivers of inequality. Jennifer Harris, a former State Department colleague, posed an arresting question when I spoke with her recently: How is it that the domestic economic agenda of the Obama administration could be so different in its values and priorities from President George W. Bush’s—so much more focused on the needs of working people—while its international economic agenda was nearly identical? The answer is that both political parties came to treat international economic issues as somehow separate from everything else. U.S. internationalism became insufficiently attentive to the needs and aspirations of the American middle class. Changing that is a prerequisite of an effective and sustainable foreign policy that enhances the American way of life.

A lot more at theatlantic.com

[Sun Tzu] Re: That dismissed as well with a statement that America has no racism problem, ...

Sun Tzu — 11/26/2020 7:48:30 AM

Re: That dismissed as well with a statement that America has no racism problem, just a law and order problem.

That reminds me of the saying that the law equally bars the rich and the poor from sleeping under a bridge.

As to the rest of your post, you may want to google Steve Bannon and Honey Badger. The honey badger was Bannon's inspiration for code of conduct. Basically, have a thick skin and break all the norms and rules to get what you want and the hell with whoever who doesn't like it.

And that's what you're seeing in America; A dysfunctional marriage between two sides where one side doesn't care a bit for the other side and just wants to squeeze whatever it can no matter what.

[Sun Tzu] Scoop: Israeli military prepares for possibility Trump will strike Iran [graphi...

Sun Tzu — 11/26/2020 7:31:36 AM

Scoop: Israeli military prepares for possibility Trump will strike Iran

Barak Ravid, author of from Tel Aviv

Defense Minister Benny Gantz attends a cabinet meeting. Photo: Abir Sultan/POOL/AFP via Getty

The Israel Defense Forces have in recent weeks been instructed to prepare for the possibility that the U.S. will conduct a military strike against Iran before President Trump leaves office, senior Israeli officials tell me.

Why it matters: The Israeli government instructed the IDF to undertake the preparations not because of any intelligence or assessment that Trump will order such a strike, but because senior Israeli officials anticipate “a very sensitive period” ahead of Biden's inauguration on Jan. 20.

The IDF's preparedness measures relate to possible Iranian retaliation against Israel directly or through Iranian proxies in Syria, Gaza and Lebanon, the Israeli officials said.Flashback: Last week, the New York Times reported that Trump raised the possibility of attacking Iran’s uranium enrichment facility in Natanz in a meeting with senior members of his national security team.

Trump raised the idea after being briefed on an International Atomic Energy Agency report about Iran’s growing stockpiles of enriched uranium, but top officials — including Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — warned about the risks of regional escalation, per the Times.Trump seemed convinced that it would be too risky to strike Iran directly, but has considered other options, the Times reports.What's happening: Israeli minister of defense Benny Gantz spoke twice in the last two weeks with Christopher Miller, Trump's acting defense secretary. They discussed Iran as well as Syria and defense cooperation.

Last Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met in Saudi Arabia with Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman. One of the main issues discussed was Iran, Israeli officials say.Pompeo visited Israel and several Gulf countries last week to discuss Iran. State Department officials traveling with Pompeo told reporters “all options are on the table."While Pompeo was in the Gulf, U.S. Central Command announced that B-52 strategic bombers conducted a “short-notice, long-range mission into the Middle East to deter aggression and reassure U.S. partners and allies." That was seen as another signal to Iran.Hossein Dehghan, an adviser to Iran’s leader and a possible candidate in Iran's upcoming presidential elections, told AP last week that a U.S. military strike against Iran could set off a “full-fledged war” in the Middle East.What’s next: Senior Israeli officials tell me they expect Israel will get prior notice ahead of any U.S. strike against Iran. But they're concerned that won't be sufficient to fully prepare. Thus the order to the IDF to start taking preparatory steps under the assumption that such a scenario is possible

[Graystone] It is what it is or You aren't what you aren't Hoover and Trump have a lot in c...

Graystone — 11/25/2020 11:04:22 AM

It is what it is
or
You aren't what you aren't

Hoover and Trump have a lot in common. Petty, vindictive little men, but most of all, they were wrong.
It really is a toss up as to which was worse for America but Trump is probably going to win this battle.
Ongoing efforts by the sitting President damage America and American companies and interests every day.
The 2020 pandemic is watershed event affecting four or five generations of people all over the world.
Every nation from the wealthiest to the poorest has been affected but America has been victimized.
Beaten bloody and still losing so badly that the world just watches from a distance, some cheer, some cry.
And amidst this carnage of preventable death sits a loathsome spider of racism and white supremacy.
It is difficult to imagine that America is in the grips of a movement that wants to end the opposition of fascism.
The specter of unorganized people fighting paramilitaries and jackboots isn't registering for them.
It is almost impossible for an American to see the picture of America that is being painted right now.
A vicious brute who casually dismisses the deaths affecting families across the nation, just dismisses them.
Riots in the streets of cities across the nation protesting the very public slaying of another victim of racism.
That dismissed as well with a statement that America has no racism problem, just a law and order problem.
From outside of the bubble that America seems to be caught in, there is no explanation.
America has always had religion in it's many forms but now, the gospel of tolerance and love is done.
It almost seems like Catholicism is lost in America to fundamentalism, a win at any cost religion.
Fundamentalism is replacing the gospel across the country, perverted and twisted is the new truth.
An alleged rapist now sits in the highest court of the country, an alleged rapist and a perjurer.
There is an attack on the principles that form the fundament of the law, it is happening today, now.
In spite of numerous opportunities to present evidence lawyers like Giuliani just yell and shout in court.
It is an egregious display of ignorance from someone who has met the bar, it disgraces all lawyers.
And this fraud is supported by an other lawyers that know and understand it is a fraud.
I understand some law firms have clearly made their position known and they deserve credit for that.
It undermines justice, in trial after trial arranged and allowed by judges in state after state the same show.
The waving of arms and the shouting that something was stolen and no evidence, none, not one bit.
At least thirty judges have accepted and examined what has been called, by them, lies and spam.
In spite of this there is no cessation, it is like a mercenary force that is willing to do legal evil for money.
Social media is used to push the same story, massive fraud, no evidence beyond "everyone knows".
At this point America is likely tired of being attacked, tired of kidnap plots, tired of tear gas clearings.
Not tired of law and order, just desiring some, every institution in America has been and is being, attacked.
They are tired of dying, tired of fighting and they are tired of the vicious little place America has become.
Some are happy, religious fundamentalists are happy, filled with hate, they march on in their war on love.
The corrupt and criminal are very happy, the opportunities to take advantage have been legion, to the highest offices.
White supremacists have been uplifted and empowered with messages straight from the top racist in chief.
Fascists continue to attack and loot and damage property while trying to blame those opposed to fascism.
And all of this happens while America sits in a giant bubble of "it is what it is" ism.

Powerful economic partnerships are developing across the world while America wallows in the mire.
Pacific nations, including Canada, China and Mexico are part of a new trading alliance, Americans aren't
In America the petty business of making it illegal to do business in China is being enacted now.
And Americans continue to pay because of the trade war they started, subsidies aren't sales.
Nations are forging ahead with fighting the coronavirus, Pfizer's vaccine had nothing to do with America.
This is true, claiming credit doesn't work in this situation, Americans aren't responsible for this vaccine.
And countries around the world have national leaders that are addressing the virus, America's aren't.
It looks like New Zealand is willing to try and help the incoming President try to fight the virus, this is good.
The direct attack on climate science and science in general was started by the oil industry.
They have misinformed, lied, obfuscated and hidden the truth as a matter of course over generations.
Under the stupid simpleton ruled by greed and inherently corrupt they have redoubled their efforts.
Every agency that has tracked and tried to turn around the runaway disaster has been gutted.
Regulations have been rolled back in every area and polluters have been unleashed.
Sensitive environmental areas have been opened to activity and the destruction goes on and on.
American's aren't leaders in much anymore except in a host of very bad ways.
And American's aren't getting smarter, they seem blind to the reality of the situation.
America was built on facing and fighting fascism, on empowering individuals, on the rights of every person.
America was defended and world wars were ended when being smart become better than being strong.
Men who had abilities, not empty braggarts, built the weapons that ended mass conflict on this planet.
And now, almost eighty years later we are faced with a stupid person who wants to use them to look strong.
Nothing could emphasize more clearly how weak and useless America has become and is becoming

[Sun Tzu] The Disastrous Idea That Won’t Go Away Trump might be tempted to order a militar...

Sun Tzu — 11/20/2020 11:05:25 AM

The Disastrous Idea That Won’t Go Away
Trump might be tempted to order a military attack on Iran, because his “maximum pressure” campaign failed to thwart that country’s nuclear program.

When President Donald Trump convened his national-security team last week to discuss whether to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, his top advisers dissuaded him from launching missile strikes, The New York Times reported. This comes as a relief, but that such a move was even under consideration is cause for alarm.

The scorn now being heaped upon the president’s Iran policy—which has manifestly failed to stop that country’s nuclear-weapons program—may animate the president’s interest in taking dramatic action before his term expires. Trump’s critics have even speculated that when the president recently bounced his top Pentagon officials, it was out of a desire to attack Iran. I still doubt the connection, but, regardless, this commander in chief has the authority to do a lot of damage in his remaining days in office—no matter who else is in the room with him. And attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities would be disastrous.

Tom Nichols: Iran’s smart strategy

Four years ago, President Trump campaigned on withdrawing the U.S. from Barack Obama’s antiproliferation agreement with Iran—officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—under which Iranians received relief from economic sanctions in exchange for stopping a variety of nuclear-development activities for up to 15 years. Although American intelligence agencies were unanimous that Iran was in compliance with the agreement, Trump argued that it was “a horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made … the Iran deal is defective at its core.” The U.S. pulled out in 2018. The other parties to the agreement—China, Russia, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, in addition to Iran—denounced Trump’s move, while Iran’s rivals Saudi Arabia and Israel praised it. Iran continued to abide by the agreement’s terms, Russia and China provided Iran with its benefits, and Europe created a payment system that allowed companies investing in Iran to skirt continuing restrictions on transactions conducted in dollars.

The Trump administration initiated a “maximum pressure” campaign that aimed to suffocate Iran’s economy until the country’s leaders submitted to an agreement without sunset clauses. This campaign has not succeeded. None of the 12 demands that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo outlined as preconditions for new negotiations with Iran have been met. By reneging on the JCPOA, America discredited the Iranians who’d advocated for it, strengthening the hand of Tehran’s most anti-Western elements. The administration’s basic theory—that while withdrawing from the agreement, the U.S. could build allied support for a more restrictive approach—has proved false. When the administration attempted to engineer the resumption of multilateral sanctions against Iran, it garnered only a single vote from other countries on the UN Security Council.

Nor has “maximum pressure” constricted Iran’s ability to mobilize militia in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon; impeded its support for terrorism; restrained its human-rights abuses; or prevented it from destabilizing regional governments. In fact, Iran has become more brazen, attacking shipping in the Gulf, conducting drone and missile strikes against an oil facility in Saudi Arabia, and—after the U.S. killed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Qassem Soleimani—resuming attacks on U.S. troops stationed in Iraq. The Trump administration has failed at reestablishing deterrence.

Given its fixation on Iran, the Trump administration might seek to use as pretext for a military attack on Iran the International Atomic Energy Agency’s recent announcement that the country has now succeeded in reprocessing 12 times the amount of low-enriched uranium that would have been permitted under the JCPOA. When nuclear material turned up at a location that Iranian officials had not declared to be a nuclear site, the IAEA described their explanation of it as “ not technically credible.”

Read: A new nuclear era is coming

Pompeo is currently traveling to Europe and the Middle East, and while the trip is billed as a series of consultations over his initiative to promote religious freedom worldwide (Turkish officials have bristled at that pretext and, by some accounts, refused to meet with him), it could also be an attempt to wring agreement out of allies whose territory, airspace, or bases would be needed in an attack on Iran. Some credence should be given to the possibility that such discussions are under way, because of a call General Mark Milley, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had with his Israeli counterpart late last week, which an official readout described only as a discussion about “the current security environment throughout the Middle East.” But an attack on Iran is a terrible idea for three reasons—which should also be sufficient to make such an attack unlikely even from an administration as reckless as Trump’s.

First, Iran’s nuclear-weapons program is geographically distributed, its key equipment is buried deep underground, and U.S. intelligence agencies have imperfect information about its location. Which means that fully destroying Iran’s nuclear program would require a sustained military campaign that could take several weeks. It would also require the participation of countries in Europe or the Persian Gulf region that are unlikely to give their consent. Recall that after Iran’s attack on Saudi Arabia in 2019, the Gulf countries opposed U.S. military retaliation. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif recently reminded his country’s neighbors, “Trump is gone in 70 days, but we’ll remain here forever.”

Second, although the U.S. has ways of punishing Iran militarily without destroying its nuclear infrastructure, those alternatives are even less attractive. The U.S. could launch a naval campaign of submarine- or air-launched missiles against Iranian military targets without utilizing allied bases or airspace. But these attacks would be largely symbolic. And the problem with symbolic uses of force is that they invite meaningful retaliation. Attacking Iran while banking on its restraint would be strategic malpractice. If Iran does have a clandestine nuclear-weapons program, the country’s leaders might consider actually using it if attacked. Iran could also resume conventional missile launches or terrorist attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq, use its precision munitions against U.S. Central Command facilities in Bahrain, or launch attacks elsewhere. The government of Iraq could well demand the removal of U.S. troops in protest, as could the governments of Qatar and Bahrain, decimating the future of U.S. power projection in the Middle East and the security relationships underpinning it. Iran retaliated modestly for the killing of Soleimani near an airport in Iraq; the country’s leaders would retaliate more fulsomely for an attack on their territory.

Third, a military strike without the need to preempt an imminent attack and with no attempt to gain approval from the UN or even a coalition of American allies would be incredibly damaging both to the United States and, more specifically, to Trump and his top aides. Trump would become an international pariah, shunned at Davos, unwelcome in and perhaps even prosecuted by foreign capitals, denied the foreign money that would otherwise boost his future prospects and ease his current debts. Even Saudi Arabia might not be willing to associate with him. President-elect Joe Biden surely would not support an unprovoked attack on Iran if he were consulted, so Trump would further sully the tradition of bipartisan foreign policy during a presidential transition. The incoming president would denounce any attack by Trump and repudiate its underlying policy—so Iran could end up in an even more favorable position than the Trump administration’s policies will currently leave it.

Read: Trump cultivated his own credibility crisis in Iran

Having failed in four years to craft a successful strategy for constraining Iran’s nuclear-weapons program, the Trump administration can only make things worse by conducting a military attack on the country in the waning days of this president’s tenure. Trump and the advocates of maximum pressure have learned the hard way that their theory of success was mistaken. They’ve managed to isolate the U.S., not Iran. Diplomacy is more than making demands and administering punishment; it also requires winning support from those countries essential to your policy’s success.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

[Sun Tzu] Alternatives to USD as the reserve currency. This doesn't mean that nobody will ...

Sun Tzu — 11/20/2020 8:10:57 AM

Alternatives to USD as the reserve currency.
This doesn't mean that nobody will trade in USD. It means that (1) The US won't be able to use its banking power to impose sanctions around the world b/c trades can use other clearing methods, And (2) The US won't be able to print as much money as it does and pay such low interest rates b/c there will be alternatives that international investors can use.

[Fiscally Conservative] Lets be specific. What exactly will we see in 10 years ?

Fiscally Conservative — 11/20/2020 6:43:45 AM

[Sun Tzu] You will see it within 10 years. No point in debating it here.

Sun Tzu — 11/19/2020 6:31:49 PM

[Fiscally Conservative] Not lack of Alternative ! It is not about the alternative simply because i...

Fiscally Conservative — 11/19/2020 6:18:35 PM

Not lack of Alternative !
It is not about the alternative simply because is there no alternative.
Lets not confuse ourselves with a runaway imagination of individual preference.
You might wish there is/was an alternative.
But...
There is no ALTERNATIVE to the $ Dollar.

Wanna compete ?
Build a Global Manufacturring Country

[Fiscally Conservative] There is nothing that can compete Market Capitalization wise to that of the $ Do...

Fiscally Conservative — 11/19/2020 6:06:02 PM

There is nothing that can compete Market Capitalization wise to that of the $ Dollar. Nothing ! Nada !!
Nothing comes even close.
Nothing comes even close right now but that can change.

Currency is used as a store of value for exchange. It has to be backed and defended. There is no country in the world that can compete with the United States Dollar towards defending its currency. None ! Zippo !!!
That is, right now.

But all this can change but it will not happen in the foreseeable future. That would take another 25 years, maybe much more. But continued ignorance can shorten that time table

US GDP is 3x that of China.
China has the second largest GDP to that of the great USA.
Getting the picture ?

USA is the wealthiest country in the world, by far and large !

What will break the USA is its politics. That will have a profound impact on
it's finances going forward. How much so is yet to be determined.

But Fear Not

The US Dollar is strong.

[BillShiphr] Hi, bro! I think that I can't answer you right now, but... I'm studying economic...

BillShiphr — 11/19/2020 4:04:19 PM

Hi, bro! I think that I can't answer you right now, but... I'm studying economics on Preply and I think that I can ask my tutor this question. It is not difficult for me, besides, I will study this theme more deeply. So, I will have a lesson next Monday and I will write to you after this.

[Sun Tzu] “Tomorrow’s successful states will probably be those that invest in infrastructu...

Sun Tzu — 11/16/2020 1:06:47 PM

“Tomorrow’s successful states will probably be those that invest in infrastructure, knowledge, and relationships resilient to shock,” the U.S. National Intelligence Council predicted in a 2017 report. “Traditional calculations of state power” might include military spending, population size, or gross domestic product, but “rarely factor in a state’s resilience,” which depends more on matters such as strong alliances, an orderly society, robust critical infrastructure, and widespread public confidence in government, the analysts noted. Conversely, they added, “states can be fragile in ways that conventional measures of power do not capture.”

[Fiscally Conservative] Trump is a Chump. But you paint with broad brush just like Chump.

Fiscally Conservative — 11/16/2020 9:43:50 AM

[Sun Tzu] So in conclusion you can do no better than emulate Trump? How disappointing.

Sun Tzu — 11/16/2020 8:53:38 AM

[Fiscally Conservative] This coming from a Transgendered shemale

Fiscally Conservative — 11/16/2020 5:22:39 AM

[Fiscally Conservative] You should become a Chinese National and put all doubt to rest ;)

Fiscally Conservative — 11/16/2020 5:20:53 AM

[Sun Tzu] Can you explain to me why some other country has to beat the US on GDP before th...

Sun Tzu — 11/15/2020 8:43:42 PM

Can you explain to me why some other country has to beat the US on GDP before the USD gives up the throne? Why for example the countries could not trade based on some basket of currencies that are used simply as a metric of value conversion while they simply barter with each other?

BTW, do you know what happened in Asia Pacific today? Do you remember that Asia trade deal that Obama wanted to push and the congress refused to sign on b/c it came from Obama (even though it was really the world of GWB)? Well that deal died and China took over to make a new treaty and today 15 Asian countries representing the largest trading block in the world signed up to it. India was the only major country that declined to sign in. The deal complements China's Belt and Road initiative and pretty much cements their leadership.

PS on PPP basis Chinese economy is the largest in the world with an estimated value of 25 trillion dollar vs US of about $20T.

[Sun Tzu] You are only partially correct. There are advantages that are afforded to the n...

Sun Tzu — 11/15/2020 8:35:33 PM

You are only partially correct. There are advantages that are afforded to the nation that prints the reserve currency. The other part is that as time goes by, the advantages diminish - mostly because the nation tends to piss it away like a kid that has too much time on his hands and doesn't know what to do with it. USD being the reserve currency is what has allowed the US to rackup so much stupid debt. Without it America would have shown better fiscal responsibility. The advantages also diminish in relative terms because the rest of the world moves forward and catches up.

Nor are the advantages completely one sided. The reason USD appreciates in value every time there is a global crisis is because the people in LatAm and developing nations trust the US government more with their money than they trust their own government. In return, and this is not due to the kindness of their heart but out of necessity, the Federal Reserve takes the USD denominated foreign debt and the impact on other markets into account as it makes up its own policy.

Having the reserve currency has certainly allowed the US to expand and maintain its empire. But empires are inherently dumb idea and not worth the headache. But somehow nobody seems to get that lesson from history. No country seems to have enough self control to know when enough is enough and always engages in world gluttony and suffers the consequences of having to run an unwieldy empire.

[Sawdusty] "We are the swinging dicks and that’s all there is." Unfortunately your dick do...

Sawdusty — 11/15/2020 7:53:23 PM

"We are the swinging dicks and that’s all there is."

Unfortunately your dick does not swing as far as it once did. Shrunken dick syndrome.

[Fiscally Conservative] Until, another country, or group of countries, can muster up the equivalent GDP...

Fiscally Conservative — 11/15/2020 7:49:58 PM

Until, another country, or group of countries, can muster up the equivalent GDP to compete with the
USA there will be no alternative to the US Dollar.
We are the swinging dicks and that’s all there is.

[Arran Yuan] A single currency as the reserve currency is a hegemony like absolute political ...

Arran Yuan — 11/15/2020 7:33:00 PM

A single currency as the reserve currency is a hegemony like absolute political and/or financial power that is inherently bound to be corrupt. Nature tells us a diverse ecological system tends to be more stable than a singular one. Even the US FRN$ won't hold its single reserve currency status, it should remain to be one of the major currencies of at least 3, such as a combo of US FRN$, RMB Yuan, and something new from Europe(?).

[Sun Tzu] Lack of alternative is the only reason why the USD has remained the reserve curr...

Sun Tzu — 11/15/2020 8:04:57 AM

Lack of alternative is the only reason why the USD has remained the reserve currency for so long. But you must realize that the world is dynamic and that things should offer inherent value rather than rely on lack of alternatives... Having a status due to lack of alternatives is like being a boyfriend/girlfriend until Mr./Ms. Right comes along. It's not a viable long-term relationship.

But since you ask, there are a number reasonable situations that can arise to challenge the USD dominance and its role as the reserve currency. And to be clear, reasonable means that active and substantial progress is being made on these fronts.

The first is replacing the SWIFT Network with a smart contract and/or blockchain based network for clearing international trade.

Another possibility is the Chinese RMB once they open up their bond and currency markets.

A third will be a stable coin based on a basket of currencies and commodities.

I personally think that all 3 will happen. It will start with the first item, the 2nd will be a contributing factor to bring about the 3rd as the final solution.

[Fiscally Conservative] And what might replace the US dollar as the worlds reserve currency ? Hmmmm... c...

Fiscally Conservative — 11/15/2020 7:46:24 AM

And what might replace the US dollar as the worlds reserve currency ?
Hmmmm...
can't think of any

[Sun Tzu] Re: Sincerely hope so This is the one thing that everyone, whether conservative...

Sun Tzu — 11/15/2020 6:16:10 AM

Re: Sincerely hope so

This is the one thing that everyone, whether conservative or liberal, Red State or Blue seems to agree upon. So the party members on both sides should push it as an official platform.

[Sun Tzu] FYI, the loss of USD as a reserve currency will be the nail in the coffin of one...

Sun Tzu — 11/15/2020 5:55:26 AM

FYI, the loss of USD as a reserve currency will be the nail in the coffin of one of the 3 key factors mentioned here: Message 33040075

That is why I was mentioning it. Though I had not read the article, my thoughts were along the same lines. About 15 years ago my friend and I independently estimated the value of reserve currency to be $500B to the government. So its loss will be a major hit to what the government can do.

But even if the USD remains the reserve currency (unlikely) I cannot fathom a situation over the next decade or two in which the government actually balances its budget, let alone pays down the debt. So the restrained government part is pretty guaranteed.

[Arran Yuan] Thank you very much for a thoroughly thought out reply! I give it a better than ...

Arran Yuan — 11/15/2020 4:22:43 AM

Thank you very much for a thoroughly thought out reply!
I give it a better than even chance that the US will eventually go back to its roots as a union of states with a fairly weak central government...call it Union-Confederate 2.0
Sincerely hope so

[Sun Tzu] BTW, why is it that Trump gets to scheme most of the money he collects under the...

Sun Tzu — 11/12/2020 7:24:01 PM

BTW, why is it that Trump gets to scheme most of the money he collects under the guise of legal defense fund? Seems like his latest scam...which is not surprising.

[Sun Tzu] Remember...Coherent thoughts and conversation...avoid presuming and just dumping...

Sun Tzu — 11/12/2020 7:21:56 PM

Remember...Coherent thoughts and conversation...avoid presuming and just dumping random thoughts in the editor...I am not in your head to know what you base your assumptions on.

And no - I never said that I made a bet on elections. Nor did I offer to make any bets on this election.

But I did say that I am willing to enter a bet with you if you can articulate what benefits you think America will/has get/gotten from Trump and show a concrete unbiased way of measure the alleged benefits.

[sense] LOL!!! So, that has you now, already, admitting Biden hasn't won this election ...

sense — 11/12/2020 5:22:31 PM

LOL!!!

So, that has you now, already, admitting Biden hasn't won this election ?

I'll declare victory now, thanks.

Will also meet your "concrete" challenge: Trump will expose election fraud and media manipulation.

Will gladly predict... the degree in which that occurs... now as never before... will likely not satisfy me.

I'll stop to note that since "It's over and Biden won... give it up"... Trump has now won North Carolina and Alaska... Georgia is doing a "full hand recount"... with roughly ZERO doubt about the outcome that makes likely, as the ballots will now be looked at, for the first time, and sorted by legitimacy. Arizona ? Pennsylvania.... LOL!!! In that context, go back and watch the still relevant Youtube on the Oct 20 "Trump Remarks at a Rally in Pennsylvania" ? Michigan? Wisconsin ? We've not even seen the outcome in a single court ruling, yet... while the media continue to pretend the reality that exists... is not happening ?

As the PARTISAN media continue lying to YOU (not me)... suppressing your news (not mine)... the tech companies, with your support (not mine), continue violating the free speech rights of your fellow citizens... and while wrongly manipulating your information flows (and mine) mislead and manipulate you (not me)... and continue pretending that they rightfully decide the outcome ?

Identify the errors in play, there... the reasons for them... the fact in reality... and it makes MANY things easily predictable ?

You can't make a call on any of those states I mentioned without discussing the extent, nature, and impact of fraud ? That itself is a personal win, for me, since what I care about most in elections is eliminating the fraud... and the corruption driving it. That won't happen without FULLY exposing it. Apparently on track to delivering "some" of that result, now? Trump being enough of an asshole to not roll over and submit to the media bullying deliberately backing the fraud and depending on it succeeding... drives them nuts... makes him a hero enough for me, on this day... and that... no matter what disagreements I have with him on other policy... requires he's less fundamentally wrong than the Democrats on "things that matter most".

In other posting on SI I've noted you'd not be likely to see the outlines of "strategy" in the current election until this week... and that all seems its becoming obvious enough now ? Can you outline, for me, the two strategies apparent now... Biden's and Trump's... and how they relate to the paths forward and the probable outcomes of the current election? Which strategy appears it better aligns with the nature of reality... and which intrinsically depends on "fooling all of the people, all of the time" ?

But, as you prefer to move the goal posts, instead, and look further out... let's do that too ?

You're obviously unaware of my posting history here on SI... which is not primarily political, but is focused on the markets and investment. If you care, some picks I've highlighted again recently... before the election... are U.S. oil and gas stocks. Relevance ? Democrats not taking the Senate means America remains energy independent, means states continue to control their own energy policies... means Democrats will not be "transitioning off oil" in a corrupt way... that lines their personal pockets at our expense... and it means the >29% yield on some of those U.S. oil and gas related issues when I bought them (some still >20%) look like a win.

I wouldn't think those were reasonable choices to make... if I'd thought that Biden would win, and the Democrats would take the Senate... and move to kill the oil and gas industry ? It was featured as an issue in the last debate... so, no one should have missed the implications ? My pick wasn't a random event ? When others asked about the dependency on the political element... I explained it... and backed the pick ?

Can you show me an election related bet you made recently... that's a $$$ winner now... and seems to be set to sustain its trend into the future... justifying a hold of that pick you made... because of the policy impacts the election just held already makes clearly apparent ?

Otherwise, the election isn't over yet. So, lets find and agree on other situations where the election result will have predictable outcomes in very real terms... so you can bet your money one way, and I can bet mine the other way... and there's not any wiggle room left to quibble about who bet on what, how, or when ?

I don't need to bet with you in hypothetical terms to make my points... since my focus and purpose here is providing a proof in a track record in my calls that you can track yourself... in real $$ terms ? Not doing that for you, either... but for myself, as a constant reality check on my own thinking. I hold myself accountable in those very real terms... all the time. Don't need you for that. If I'm wrong... even if only in timing, in the short term... it means my choices lose money... and If I'm right ? I deliberately put money where my mouth is... or, put my mouth where money is... just not ever in the P-n-D meaning of that... I'm also not unaware and thus stupid about it ? Providing that transparency (on some easily manipulated picks) might enable others in hurting me financially ? LOL! Been around this block a few times... know how the world works... so don't bother with that. I'm not pretending to be fully transparent... but what I predict is here for you to see.

A fun aside in current context... we could discuss "green energy" and "global warming" and "carbon credit trading" in context of physical reality, manipulation of opinion, and the reality in it all being about $$$ and corruption... and nothing else. For context... I ran a small nano tech company doing green energy research... that succeeded wildly in the lab... we were making super efficient devices pre-2000... and now, because of corruption enabled by frauds, I won't publish my work. The tech will succeed in good time... when it makes economic sense... but, for now, its ONLY about politics fostering corruption for money, which is actually OBSTRUCTING technical progress, preventing innovators from succeeding to favor the most corrupt instead. That is not remotely close to being about free markets and innovation delivering more economic solutions... that are cleaner and less conflicted ?

Politics is corrupt. Wall Street is corrupt. Breaking news ?

So, yeah, back in the day... an easy call to make on Obama and "green tech" stocks and corruption... including both the initial pop in the shares, in the up sense that I called then, and the same in the pop, later, in terms exposing Obama's $500 million Solyndra fraud. Some of this is just so obvious you'd have to be blind to miss it... which works... since most people are unwilling to see it until forced... and then still deny its obvious meaning.

FWIW, I picked Obama to beat Hillary AND win the Presidency... when ALL of my Democrat friends called me nuts because it was so obvious Hillary had already won... the nomination ? Anyway...

Can you explain for me... why all the polls were SO wrong in 2016... and why they were even MORE wrong in the 2020 election ? Polling isn't rocket science ? It's basically not possible to be THAT wrong... without TRYING to be that wrong ? So, why is that what you see ? What impact does it have ?

Why would you believe those same people, who were that wrong... about the outcome of the election now ?

If you're still fully on board with thinking what you were just two weeks ago... its not too late... go ahead... bet on Biden... and short the U.S. oil stocks ? Let me know what picks you make... what you expect in their performance over time ? And, then, lets track the results over time ? Will they all go away as we transition to green energy... making corrupt Democrats rich... or as we return to dependence on foreign oil suppliers... making corrupt Democrats rich ? Or... not ?

Perhaps you sense a theme, here... that most people are unwilling to see until forced... and then still deny in its obvious meaning ? Can you show me Trump's corrupt parallel... in using the Presidency to make Don Jr rich while selling out the country... in the way that is exposed as FACT now, in the Biden's pay-to-play scandal involving Russia, Ukraine, China... and ??? <queue crickets chirping>

Trump worse than Biden ? Show me.

That all as intro to note: My record here hasn't had me forecasting an imminent golden age dominated by rainbows and unicorns ? I fully realize how dark the future has to be when it is dominated by the brand of corruption that still controls everything now ? The most rational choice... is to both resist it and NOT feed the beast... as you are doing, and I will not... which still isn't a guarantee that you won't be eaten by it ?

The political interface with reality... does little to alter the legacies we're left with as a consequence in reality of our prior choices. What it does enable, is a recognition that we do have choices, and the choices do matter. But, choices you must make... aren't close to a guarantee the choices will be painless ?

If you think there''s an issue with an abyss just ahead... tell me how, when and why we enter the abyss... what we do about it while we're in it... what it means "to be in the abyss" in practical terms... then how, why and when we might get out of it... what consequences attend... and what the world looks like on the other side ? Not sufficient to describe what it looks like "to us" without considering the variable and disparate impacts on the rest of the world... and how our experience likely varies from most others ?

Everyone (not in politics... where the near future and the value of our near term choices is a mostly forbidden subject) is talking about The Great Reset... without ever discussing WHAT THAT MEANS... in the plans others have already made for you... and how what it means varies depending on WHICH VERSION of "a reset" we're likely to be subjected to... ?

Which version of a "reset" is it that you voted to get in the recent election ?

In that context... re-watch that Trump rally in Pennsylvania on Oct 20 ? Is it relevant ?

So, that's a simpler challenge for you...

What "reset" options are we faced with ? What are the "team interests" in the various options that exist ?

What variables might control the choices that get made ?

Note... other than having a bit of fun with you on stock picks... I'm not really asking you to make a prediction about ANY outcomes ? I'm only asking you to outline the different choices that do exist... and the likely impacts of making one choice versus another... or one set of choices versus another ?

Is it a choice between free markets... and communism ? Which would you choose ?

Is it a choice between different brands of socialism ? Which would you choose ?
Is it a choice between sovereign nation states or an EU style global domination by un-elected elites ?
Which would you choose ?
Is it a choice between the existing world order, based on adherence to agreements and the rule of law, or some new world order that no one will define for us in its fundamentals, or in the implication of the change intended ? Which would you choose ?

Can you predict an outcome... without even knowing the game, what's in play, and the teams playing ?

What does game theory add to your consideration then ?

Most of that I'm asking you for... is fairly linear stuff... talking about money and economics... trade... while ignoring the fundamentally political nature that is an inherent element in our choices, in our world view ? What are the implications and the probabilities in what those choices might deliver in changes, and in what the dynamic in change could mean to us in terms of how the choices and dynamics define what life will be like on the other side ?

Sort through what the options are... in practical terms... and THEN consider the political implications ?

Given different forms of conflict... what are the thresholds between them ?

How can you tell what limits will apply ?

Only once you have the big picture... should you begin to address the nature of the conflicts that will tend to control the choices made... while making a stab at a prediction ? I was going to suggest a particular football game next weekend might provide a proper point of reference in considering some of that. But, holy crap... look how many are being postponed ?

saturdaydownsouth.com

Harder to pick winners... when you don't even know the game being played ?

And, then, it isn't enough to address what your own choices or preferences are ? You also have to address others choices, and the probabilities in outcomes given conflicts between competing ideas ? How do you decide what's likely to control the outcome... no matter what it is you prefer in an outcome ?

And only then... with that well and fully considered... is it rational to make any predictions about the likely impacts of choices ?

Won't surprise you to hear that I'll tend to consider the issues in relation to self delusion or the frauds being practiced... noting the attendant corruption... as often being determinative. How we address those problems... or not... is a subject of politics... but it also dictates the outcome in conflict ?

That's because "fraud" is mostly a form of self delusion and a source of weakness... which is not necessarily true individually... but is always true in its acceptance in the aggregate.

Turns out... corrupt people can't be trusted ? LOL!!! How many are there ? How corrupt are they ? What does the distribtion plot look like ?

Why did the media think censoring conservatives speech... would control the outcome of the election ?

Or, were they trying to ensure a Trump win ?

What is the benefit of believing your own propaganda ?

So, go ahead... make a few predictions that give me your best defense of corruption and fraud engaged in advancing your cause... and show us where it leads... in this election... and in the larger scheme of things in the world ?

Is "the Abyss"... just a threat ? Can it be avoided... if only you agree to submit to others corruption ?

[Sun Tzu] Actually, I did not talk about the worst case scenario, only the most likely sce...

Sun Tzu — 11/12/2020 3:31:15 PM

Actually, I did not talk about the worst case scenario, only the most likely scenarios.

The worst case scenario is that burdened by a mountain of debt, plagued by internal divisions and radically different views of America's place in the world, the USD will lose its status as the world's reserve currency which in turn brings about a ton of financial difficulties for the US government. Combined with pressure towards xenophobia, the US may fracture under the pressure and go through something similar to what the Soviet Union went through and become a mere shadow of its former self...an even bigger worse case scenario involves new cold wars with China and Russia (and possibly hot wars with their proxies) .

I don't think either of these is likely. But nor is it so far out to be brushed aside.

I give it a better than even chance that the US will eventually go back to its roots as a union of states with a fairly weak central government...call it Union-Confederate 2.0

[Arran Yuan] Worst case of scenario :-( Fingers crossed for a lighter outcome!

Arran Yuan — 11/12/2020 6:40:45 AM

[Sun Tzu] I have a pretty good track record on these things. So far I have not lost any b...

Sun Tzu — 11/11/2020 9:45:05 PM

I have a pretty good track record on these things. So far I have not lost any bets on SI, including when I made the bet with the neocons on Iraq and how not only it will not be the shining example or even a US ally, but a great point of regret. We put in a time and metric to reassess and they lost but never paid off.

I am going to offer you the same chance. Come up with a concrete list of what you think the Trump presidency has delivered and/or will deliver over the next few years and we will assess it then.

I am personally of the opinion that the US is headed into an abyss. The best case scenario is a series of hapless governments over the next 10 - 20 years. But there is an even greater chance of political instability and riots worse than the '60s. Hopefully the country will re-emerge better than before. But the near and medium term outlook is not bright...and that is irrespective of who is the president or holds the senate.

[sense] Can't speak for "you guys"... But, pointless to carp about "a cost"... that 's ...

sense — 11/11/2020 9:20:47 PM

Can't speak for "you guys"...

But, pointless to carp about "a cost"... that 's not defined yet still one-sided... without considering alternative costs... lost opportunity costs, etc.

Entering with the assumption that your own priorities are "right"... when the majority don't agree, and their concerns address things you ignore as not of interest ? That will always drive you into error... and into making mistakes...

I'm not doing math, though... when talking about costs ?

[Sun Tzu] BTW, in case you missed it, I posted today that Trump only seems fresh b/c the e...

Sun Tzu — 11/11/2020 9:05:32 PM

BTW, in case you missed it, I posted today that Trump only seems fresh b/c the established politicians stink so much. So you do have some point in there. But I think that you guys have fundamentally misunderstood Trump, what he does, and what price the country is paying for it.

[Sun Tzu] Do tell. What did he accomplish for you and at what cost?

Sun Tzu — 11/11/2020 9:02:14 PM

[sense] Trump is an asshole ? You think the people voting for him don't know that ? Yo...

sense — 11/11/2020 8:32:10 PM

Trump is an asshole ?

You think the people voting for him don't know that ?

You think they're not voting for him... BECAUSE of it ?

Sometimes... an asshole is the right guy for the job... because the nice guys can't get it done.

If you guys see Trump as an asshole... hold up a mirror... and see what created him.

The rest is carping... because ITS WORKING...

[Sun Tzu] BTW, there is an old and wise saying, tell me who your friends are and I tell yo...

Sun Tzu — 11/11/2020 7:35:39 PM

BTW, there is an old and wise saying, tell me who your friends are and I tell you who you are. Perhaps you can list Trump's friends over the years.

And while you are at it, maybe you can dig into what the people whom he could not force to sign an NDA say about him.

BTW, what kind of person insists that anyone who associates with him, from his wife to the volunteers for his campaign sign an NDA to never say anything about him? What does that tell you about the person?

[Sun Tzu] >> Both parties are corrupt... which doesn't make them equally corrupt, or that ...

Sun Tzu — 11/11/2020 7:16:15 PM

>> Both parties are corrupt... which doesn't make them equally corrupt, or that "all of the time" or the same ?

That is true. GOP is far more corrupt than Dems. Conservatives attract an extraordinary number of corrupt leaders. This is not an ideological or partisan issue. It is baked into the fabric of a conservative person. One example is the church. I don't think that the priests are a bunch of pedophiles. I think that pedophiles opportunistically choose to be priests because it affords them an aura of respectability beyond reproach and access to the children. The same goes for the many of conservative leaders. You guys are so enamoured by them that you fail to see through their hypocrisy.

>> On the left...On the right...

I don't think that you are the right person for this debate. You have shown no ability to objectively look at GOP and their supporters. I really think that you should discuss this with Koan. You two would make a good couple. I will bring in the popcorn and watch the two of you "debate" about the parties.

>> Until this election, the Republican establishment were still Trumps primary opponent

And then GOP proved to be a bunch of unprincipled cowards by kowtowing to Trump. I watched Lindsey Graham describe what a horrible person Trump is. Ditto for Cruze and so many of the rest of them. And then just to keep their seats warm, they all bent over backwards to kiss his ring.

The only honorable Republicans are the Never Trumpers. Not because they opposed Trump, but because they showed the courage of their conviction and took in real personal and professional hits but stood firm. I admire than in a person even if I disagree with them completely.

>> Whether Trump wins his contests or not... those R's elected this cycle... are TRUMP Republicans

You say that as if that is a good thing. Trump is a clinical narcissist and mentally unstable. He is a serial adulterer, a professional conman and a cheat. You don't have to take my word for it, just check out his record before he got elected. The fact that a good chunk of America is blind to his flaws or finds them excusable bodes very badly for the nation.

But of course you do not see it that way. Like I said from the start, I don't mind people disagreeing with me. But they need to be coherent and have some logical framework based on facts. The facts are not on your side. BTW, I am from Queens. I know Trump and Giuliani pretty well. There was not a day that we did not hear about them in NYC...and I am talking about the pre-9/11 days before these guys cultivated a superhero aura for themselves. You should look at their personal lives from back then and tell me if you would have your daughter mary either of them.

[sense] Among the errors implicit there... ? Both parties are corrupt... which doesn't ...

sense — 11/11/2020 6:03:51 PM

Among the errors implicit there... ?

Both parties are corrupt... which doesn't make them equally corrupt, or that "all of the time" or the same ?

Both parties had an opportunity, post 9/11 and post 2008... to address their issues. Both failed.

On the left... the Occupy Wallstreet movement had some real potential... but pissed it all away in orgasms of ideological bullshit. It never did accomplish more than annoy people by trashing public spaces... to "generate awareness" they already had... and do nothing meaningful about it. Save the planet by texting xxxx to yyyy?

On the right... the battle was directly engaged between the entrenched corruption of the uni-party... from the grassroots... by activism that changed the outcome of elections. Not all of that was pretty... but, Democracy isn't supposed to be... never has been... shouldn't be all and only a gentleman's club.

Trump clearly isn't that much of a gentleman. It's part of what makes him successful. He's got the blue collar appeal Bloomberg can't buy, while trying. Most of what pisses off Democrats... is that he should be in their camp... but, there are good reasons he isn't ? Instead... he's slowly eroding the Democrats core base... the defections becoming more than a rumor this cycle... and that trend is accelerating... will be more in the future, because of how the response has alienated them all the more with patronizing platitudes that are clearly phony.

That he's a Republican... isn't the choice of the Republican establishment ? Until this election, the Republican establishment were still Trumps primary opponent, and the only one that presented any real threat to his political survival. But, the Republican establishment didn't have the means to resist him ? Because... they were already compromised... making it easy to beat them at the polls with simple truths. This cycle... those FEW who are not already ushered out... like Paul Ryan... are more intent on testing the breezes behind them instead of the headwinds... and they are capitulating.

Whether Trump wins his contests or not... those R's elected this cycle... are TRUMP Republicans and mostly NOT recycled garbage from the old regime... that still controls the Democrats...

Trump is not the "end state" of that change in process on the right. He's just a guy who leaped in front of a parade that others blindly refused to admit existed. Otherwise, almost everything the left says about it, and about him, is entirely about defending their own corruption (and nothing else)... from the risk of that perception that the other side is actually succeeding in rooting out that problem on the right... and are now closer than evern to winning the outright ability to force it being rooted out on the left, too...

Gerrymandering... following this election... ensures the R's (now the Trump Party) will re-write lines to make that happen in 2 years... "that" still not being about R's beating D's... as much as about R's fixing their own problem... shoring up the foundations... while still leaving D's saddled with their incapacity to do so.

The solution for Democrats is simple... Fix the problem in your own party... or die.

Thus far... Democrats are choosing to defend the fraud, to protect the corruption of the few... while allowing the CIA to choose who controls the party for them... and then going insane when that choice fails ?

So, Democrats are set up now... already crossing the lines trying to impose speech control ? Not just trying to "silence the right"... but ensuring YOU don't step out of line and try to elect... Gabbi or Pete... who might not be corrupt enough for them ?

None so blind...

[sense] You err in making assumptions.

sense — 11/11/2020 5:31:47 PM

[Sun Tzu] It should tell you everything you need to know about your party (really about bo...

Sun Tzu — 11/11/2020 3:25:57 PM

It should tell you everything you need to know about your party (really about both parties - but you only get to know your own).

[sense] Yeah. After tilting at that windmill a few times, gave up on that around 1998.....

sense — 11/11/2020 3:19:11 PM

Yeah. After tilting at that windmill a few times, gave up on that around 1998...

[Sun Tzu] You can look to Canada and many other parts of the world as to how redistricting...

Sun Tzu — 11/11/2020 3:13:22 PM

You can look to Canada and many other parts of the world as to how redistricting can work without entrenching the ruling party.

The truth is that neither party wants to see gerrymandering disappear b/c it's what keeps their seats safe and allows them to continue self-dealing. Hell, there are even computer programs that do it based on fundamental principles rather than party affiliation. The output of the program can then be adjusted by human supervisor. The typical arrangement is that 3 people from each party + 3 non-partisans form a 9 member committee that handles the issue within established guidelines.

Everyone should push their party to stop gerrymandering and work towards a nonpartisan committee handling it. The more reasons the party establishment gives you for why it is not possible and the more resistance they show, the more corrupt that party is.

[sense] Agree with that as "an issue"... but, one issue... just not seeing it linearly p...

sense — 11/11/2020 2:37:53 PM

Agree with that as "an issue"... but, one issue... just not seeing it linearly providing an obvious real solution to "end that" only ? And doing that could make things worse.

Shut down the one "jiggering process" in a way that doesn't address the others... and in reality the corruption and the practice of fraud... only grow worse the longer one party controls the levers of power in one fiefdom they've carved out. Then, corruption piles on top of corruption... making those most at risk of exposure in the event of change... grow increasingly desperate to prevent change.

That's EXACTLY what's driving the national election just now, too ? Not just the general, right now... but the "machine" steamrolling the internal opposition in the primaries ? And the internal fight over the Speakers gavel ? Four years of ZERO accomplished... other than fostering lies while playing defense to protect the most corrupt from being exposed ? Unfortunately, Sanders accepted the pay-off offered this cycle... so he's no longer the outsider alternative the aware left wanted to find... who could be relied on to implement real change ?

You see that issue clearly enough already in the "uni-party" states... and particularly in the urban cores.

If you do shut down the gerrymandering... it only entrenches the corruption more firmly... And doing that is an unlikely recipe for unwinding rather than expanding its more pernicious effects...

Consider it a game theory problem... in which the dynamic in result, however distasteful, is a better outcome than you get from disrupting the dynamic and the few benefits it does convey. And, election fraud only exacerbates the problem, disabling the potential to change anything, ever... once the fraud succeeds and perpetuates itself with increasing intensity as required ?

Ending competition... doesn't solve the problem of having a competition that fails to enable change ?

Give me a better option ?

Show me how to restore legitimacy in elections in the urban core ? There, gerrymandering isn't as much about "party control" rather than about protecting boundaries of control for particular corrupt individuals ? Change that... so that there is a real competition possible... with advocacy for improving lives by actually changing how things work locally... and making it all actually matter ?

Defending the corruption we have... to prevent the discomfort of having anything change ? How a benefit ?

Maybe that's a term limits argument... but, of course, if politics is a team sport... shifting its focus from a more individual sport effort to more of a team effort... still not fully addressing the problem ?

A proper re-thinking of the gerrymandering problem might require recognizing, first, that both corruption and its result, in fraud, are significant enough issues that change is required... to prevent systemic failure.

The ossification of systems that deliberately disable their correction mechanisms... ensures their failure. Maybe the failure only occurs as you see in Seattle now... where people just give up and move away... ?

If you don't defeat the corruption and fraud, up front... if you won't insist on full compliance with contracts... including that fundamental contract in terms of our mutual agreed adherence to the rule of law (in this country, the Constitution)... or similarly, everywhere, those same fundamentals understood in terms of the broad social contract and human rights ? Then, what's the point... ?

In the bigger scheme... what sense does it make to "advocate for democracy"... when the CIA controls the outcome of elections everywhere ? But, we're just fine doing business with every tin horn dictator or every totalitarian state... no matter how egregious they are ? The CIA doing that same thing here, to us, now... is a direct violation of U.S. law... which is why they've implausibly "outsourced" the operation to "contractors" ?

Who does that benefit ? Clearly... not the nations whose elections are controlled ? And, not us. Maybe "the American interest"... which clearly isn't focused on the interest of Americans in the urban core or the states in which one party controls everything... while it is run into the ground... also isn't focused on the "American interest" in what happens outside the borders ?

Why did we attack Libya, again ? Because... some NATO allies wanted to... and we got roped into supporting them when they couldn't do it without our support ? Is that what happened ? just more of the same in corruption... making war a profit center... when corrupt Europeans wanted Libya's oil ?