RUTHFULLY YOURS

Russia, China and America never will be friends; at best they will be peaceful competitors rather than warlike adversaries. To maintain the former rather than the latter circumstance is the proper goal of American policy.

It would be dangerous for America to pursue the Wilsonian (and neo-conservative) vision of internal transformation of Russia and China, with the goal of turning them into American-style democracies.

The second-most dangerous thing America could do would be to abandon the world stage. World stability depends on a strong America, that is, an America that is economically vibrant and technologically superior.

It is whimsical to speak of a Russian-Chinese-American “alliance” in the sense of the European “Holy Alliance” after the Napoleonic Wars. America, Russia and China never will be allies. China and Russia can be “equal partners” with America, provided that America is more equal than China and Russia. By this I mean that China and Russia are powers that have legitimate interests that deserve consideration, so long as America retains a decisive edge in military technology – something that cannot now be taken for granted.

Relatively speaking, America’s big stick has shrunk noticeably, and there is a temptation to speak loudly by way of compensation.

Misconceptions about Russia and China abound and could have tragic consequences. Democracy is integral to American culture, which (as I have tried to show) flows from our self-conception as an almost-chosen people. Individualism is stamped indelibly on our national character, and our national avatar is the lone pilgrim.

Russia and China are not like us, and Russians and Chinese do not see the world the way we do. Russia and China are not nation-states but multi-ethnic empires. In that respect they bear a certain resemblance to the United States, which is a multi-ethnic republic rather than a nation-state in the usual sense of the word.

To construct a state from different ethnicities – a one, out of many -requires a culture with some universalizing character. The peculiar ways in which Russia and China were unified is the key to their character.

or his part, Trump has been ambiguous, perhaps strategically so, on how he intends to handle the Iran deal, variously suggesting that he would tear it up, restructure it, or — in a significant departure from the Obama administration — hold the mullahs to its strict letter.

I would propose a different tack: Trump should treat the Iran deal the way it should have been treated all along — as a treaty.

Doing so would help President Trump accomplish two critical objectives in one fell swoop. First, without necessarily dismantling any benefits Obama may have secured, Trump would lawfully transfer to himself the power to renegotiate the deal on better terms — the signature skill on which he built his successful White House bid. Second, he would reverse a perilous constitutional setback that purports to create American legal obligations through international proceedings in which powers hostile to the United States — Russia, China, and Iran itself — weigh in, but the American people’s elected representatives are frozen out.

It cannot be stressed enough that the Iran deal is not law, at least for the most part (more on that caveat momentarily). An international agreement becomes legally binding on the American people only if it is ratified as a treaty or enabled by ordinary legislation. Neither is true of the JCPOA. It is therefore a mere executive agreement that may be canceled at any time. The fact that Obama signed it and got it endorsed by the United Nations Security Council is insufficient, under our Constitution, to create legal obligations. Indeed, that is why there is rampant speculation about what Trump might do — had the agreement been ratified or statutorily enacted, there would be nothing to discuss.

There is a complication (isn’t there always?). When the Obama administration signed the JCPOA, Congress did not do what it should have done — namely, either (a) nothing at all or (b) pass a “sense of the Senate” or “sense of Congress” resolution affirming that, for an international agreement to be legally binding, the Constitution requires the president to present it to the Senate for approval or seek legislation implementing its terms. Instead, Congress foolishly enacted legislation — the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA) — which allowed the president to claim a legislative imprimatur with only one-third support from Congress.

I will not rehash the demerits of INARA — I have already done that repeatedly and at length (see here and follow the links). It is not my intention here to provoke more debate with Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker, who says he is a staunch opponent of the Iran deal. I am proposing a way for Senator Corker to lead a meaningful opposition.

INARA is relevant for present purposes because, as I have previously explained, it arguably repealed sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program. Although the language is less than clear, I believe the courts would see it that way.

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter told reporters in London today that while he can’t give allies assurances that the next administration will continue leading the global coalition to defeat the Islamic State, he believes he can make a good case for continuity with his successor.

Appearing at a joint press conference with his counterpart, UK Defense Secretary Michael Fallon, Carter emphasized that the “coalition military campaign plan we laid out last January has been on track and proceeding just as we envisioned.”

Foreign ministers discussed how “countries can do even more to accelerate ISIL’s defeat, because the sooner we defeat ISIL in Iraq and Syria, the safer all of us in our homelands will be.”

“I was pleased to hear around the table today a number of coalition countries announce additional military contributions that they’ll be making to accelerate the campaign,” Carter added.

Fallon declared that ISIS “is now failing.”

“It controls less than 10 percent of the Iraqi. It’s lost more than a quarter of land it once held in Syria. Its supply of recruits has dried up. And more than 25,000 Daesh fighters have now been killed,” the British secretary said. “…In the last three years, our police and security services have disrupted 12 plots here in the United Kingdom, all either linked to or inspired by Daesh. And that is why the coalition needs to do even more to share its intelligence insight.”

Carter, who has been on a two-week trip with his wife Stephanie to thank U.S. troops, acknowledged “we’re undergoing a presidential transition in America right now — and as I did today with my counterparts, I will share my lessons learned with my successor at the appropriate time, detailing the logic of our campaign plan and the strategic approach, and how we’re seeing results on the ground.”

“And among my recommendations will be the need for the United States to remain actively engaged as leader of this coalition, to ensure that we deliver ISIL a lasting defeat and continue to protect our homelands,” he said.

The Defense secretary said he “can’t give assurances” to coalition allies that the U.S. will stay the course, but he has “confidence in the future of the coalition campaign.”

President-elect Donald Trump is being faulted for supposedly appointing too many retired generals to cabinet-level jobs and “militarizing” the government.

Former lieutenant general Michael Flynn is slated to be national security adviser. Retired Marine general James Mattis has been nominated as defense secretary. Retired Marine general John Kelly is Trump’s nominee for secretary of homeland security. High-ranking officers such as General David Petraeus and Admiral Michael Rogers have been rumored for other positions in the Trump administration.

All are retired as well as seasoned veterans. They have been previously entrusted with the lives of thousands of soldiers, and they have traveled around the world and met many of the key leaders in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.

Most of the criticism of the Flynn, Mattis, and Kelly nominations is politically created hysteria, like past contrived bouts of partisan frenzy over subjects such as the “war on women” or the “climate of hate.”

Why, after reaching a high military rank before retirement, should a nominee earn more scrutiny than an ex-banker, ex-politician or ex-lawyer?

Did anyone complain when Barack Obama appointed five retired generals and one retired admiral to either Cabinet posts or high-ranking positions in his administration? In fact, Flynn and Petraeus were first appointed to high office by Obama.

Under Obama, Petraeus became CIA director. Flynn served as Obama’s director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Retired general Eric Shinseki was head of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Retired general James Jones was national security adviser. Retired admiral Dennis Blair and retired general James Clapper served as successive directors of national intelligence.

Ronald Reagan also appointed a number of retired and acting generals to cabinet positions or other high offices, including Al Haig as secretary of state, Colin Powell (while on active duty) as national security adviser, and Vernon Walters as ambassador to the United Nations.

Retired generals and admirals as administration secretaries, officers, directors and advisers are nothing new. In the 20th century, most of the stars of the American effort in World War II later served in the executive branch.

President Harry Truman appointed General George Marshall (of Marshall Plan fame) secretary of state and, later, secretary of defense. General Omar Bradley was head of the Veterans Administration while still on active duty.

Dwight Eisenhower, without prior elected office, proved a most-effective Republican president.

The chief complaint about Trump’s appointments is that too many generals will mean too great a likelihood of war. Historical evidence points to the opposite conclusion. Generals were not the proverbial “best and brightest” who argued for military intervention in Vietnam, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, or the bombing of Libya in 2011.

In a famous example of a civilian-military paradox, President Bill Clinton’s ambassador to the United Nations, Madeline Albright, scolded Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell in 1993 for not being more eager to send troops into the Balkans. “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” Albright asked Powell.

Traditionally, retired generals and flag officers have no desire to see their own troops killed in what they see as optional wars abroad. Their occasional harangues about building up military power are predicated on notions of peace-through-strength deterrence: The more powerful the military is perceived abroad, the less likely it will be need to be used.

Kellyanne Conway, senior adviser to President-elect Donald Trump, said Monday that moving the United Stated embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to the country’s capital — Jerusalem — will be a top priority for the Trump administration.

Conway explained to conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt that not only did Trump make it clear that would be a goal of his as president before the election, but he has talked about it several times since being elected president.

“That is very big priority for this president-elect, Donald Trump,” she said. “He made it very clear during the campaign, Hugh, and as president-elect I’ve heard him repeat it several times privately, if not publicly.”

Most nations do not have their Israeli embassies in Jerusalem. Rather, most countries currently have their embassies in or around the city of Tel Aviv, as most countries still do not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Israel declared Jerusalem to be their capital city in 1949 after Britain finally left the area. Still, much of the land in Eastern Jerusalem, including many holy sites, remains under contention between Israel and the Palestinians.

Many past U.S. presidents, including Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, expressed a desire to move the American embassy to Jerusalem, but never quite followed through on their promises — something Conway said she doesn’t quite understand.

“It is something that our friend in Israel, a great friend in the Middle East, would appreciate and something that a lot of Jewish-Americans have expressed their preference for,” she told Hewitt. “It is a great move. It is an easy move to do based on how much he talked about that in the debates and in the sound bites.”

While the Trump transition team has high praise for Israel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made clear on Sunday that the praise goes both ways.

During an interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes” that aired Sunday, Netanyahu said that he knows Trump “very well” and has high hopes of a very close and successful relationship with the U.S. under Trump’s administration — something he hasn’t had under President Barack Obama.

You can listen to audio of Conway’s comments with Hewitt here.

It’s in the nature of nation-states, especially those with pretensions to global influence, to insinuate themselves into the domestic operations of their neighbors near and far, and Vladimir Putin’s Russia has not exactly disguised its ambitions. Just ask the beleaguered residents of Ukraine and the Baltic states. According to the Washington Post, the CIA has concluded with “high confidence” that Russian interference in this year’s presidential election — primarily the thousands of e-mails leaked from the Democratic National Committee and others — was designed to boost Donald Trump’s electoral prospects, not merely to shake Americans’ faith in the integrity of their electoral system. If true — and that’s a big if as of now — Russia is more brazen than one might have thought.

Of course, interfering in an election by exposing sensitive information, as Russia seems to have done, and, say, tampering with Diebold machines are two different things — a distinction that Hillary Clinton partisans have conveniently forgotten. Since the report broke late last week, eminences such as Paul Krugman have called the election “tainted,” high-profile commentators have gone so far as to suggest we have a “revote,” and the Clinton campaign has announced that it supports a demand from ten presidential electors (among them Nancy Pelosi’s daughter) for an intelligence briefing in advance of the Electoral College’s December 19 vote. Needless to say, this is all part of the ongoing effort to find excuses for Clinton’s loss other than Hillary Clinton. Kremlin machinations make for a helpful addition to the list that also includes Madisonian republicanism, James Comey, and “fake news.”

Amid so much panic, it’s worth recalling precisely who has been responsible for America’s foreign policy vis-à-vis Russia for the last eight years. The president-elect is not the one who oversaw the Russian “reset,” or who allowed Russia to gobble up Crimea and invade Ukraine with impunity, or who enabled Putin to prop up the Assad regime in Syria, or who permitted American diplomats to be harassed in Moscow. It’s not Donald Trump who has created a nearly global safe space for Russian adventurism. Additionally, it’s not President-elect Trump and his secretary of state who exchanged classified communiqués over an unsecured e-mail server, and it was John Podesta, not Kellyanne Conway, whose password was . . . “p@ssw0rd.” High-ranking Democrats were laxer about data security than the average Apple store, and now they’re stunned that a foreign power may have exploited those vulnerabilities.

As anyone who’s ever done business with mainland China knows, a fool and his money (or time, or expertise) are soon parted. Contracts aren’t honored, owed monies aren’t paid, a man’s word is not his bond and a contract isn’t worth the pixels it’s printed on. So good for Donald Trump for putting the Red Chinese in their place, and openly flirting with our allies, the Taiwanese, by re-opening the door to a two-China policy:

US president-elect Donald Trump has questioned whether Washington should continue its one-China policy if Beijing does not make concessions on trade and other issues.

“I don’t know why we have to be bound by a one-China policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade,” Trump told Fox News Sunday in response to a question on his taking a phone call from Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen, a move which broke with decades of US diplomatic tradition. The one-China policy recognises that Taiwan is part of China, but the US has remained ambiguous on the issue.

Besides trade, Trump said China was not cooperating with the US on its handling of the yuan, on North Korea, and tensions in the South China Sea.

Even a cursory look at Chinese and Taiwanese history since the end of World War II shows how immoral and short-sighted the bullying “one-China” policy has been. It’s all founded in the communists’ inferiority-complex insistence to be recognized as the legitimate government of China, and therefore of the island of Taiwan, when the Republic of China government fled after its defeat by Mao in 1949.

Regarding Trump’s comment on the one-China policy, Renmin University international relations professor Pang Zhongying said the administration may play up the Taiwan issue, which could cause friction with Beijing. “It’s likely that Trump will use Taiwan to demand concessions from Beijing. The situation will be tricky,” he said. CONTINUE AT SITE