The View from Right Field

The Killing of Qassem Soleimani and the Dog That Didn’t Bark

“The Adventure of Sliver Blaze,” one of the most popular Sherlock Holmes stories, involves the theft of a famous race horse, Silver Blaze, and the killing of its trainer, just before an important racer.  In a conversation with a Scotland Yard detective, Sherlock Holmes explains a key clue:

“Gregory: Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?
Holmes: To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.
Gregory: The dog did nothing in the night-time.
Holmes: That was the curious incident.”

A Few Thoughts on the Killing of Iranian Revolutionary Guard General Qassem Soleimani

1. It seems to me that, with a proper plan and an appropriate long-term strategy, the killing of Iranian Revolutionary Guard General Qassem Soleimani could work out well for the United States and other people and countries opposed to the theocratic and totalitarian policies of Iran’s government, especially their external aspects.  Whether the Trump administration has the people to come up with such a plan and strategy and whether Donald Trump has the experience, patience, and long-term commitment to follow through on such a plan and strategy is a real question and concern.¹

2. As for the criticisms about killing, or assassinating, a general of a country with which we are not at war, I would say that what constitutes “war” is a lot different today than what it was in even the first half of the twentieth century.  General Soleimani organized a lot of attacks on United States soldiers and our friends and allies.  He seemed to think he was at war with us.  In today’s world, that may be enough.

Is This the Afghanistan Bug-Out I Have Been Worried About?

While he was in Afghanistan for Thanksgiving last week, Donald Trump said that peace talks would resume with the Taliban.  But, as normal for President Trump, things about the resumption of talks are a little unclear.  According to The Wall Street Journal, President Trump said:

“The Taliban wants to make a deal – we’ll see if they make a deal.  If they do they do, and if they don’t they don’t.  That’s fine.”

The Washington Post quoted the President as saying:

“The Taliban wants to make a deal and we’re meeting with them and we’re saying it has to be a cease-fire and they didn’t want to do a cease-fire, and now they do want to do a cease-fire.  I believe it’ll probably work out that way.”

Hong Kong: Freedom’s Light Still Shines

Three weeks ago, on the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, people were wondering what went wrong.  Democracy is on the decline in eastern Europe and elsewhere, while nasty populism is rising all over the world, including the United States.

But then, when things seem dark, a tiny ray of light shines, a delicate little flower blooms.  In 1977, it was Vaclav Havel and Charter ’77 in Communist East Europe.  In the 1970s, it was Spain, Portugal and Greece leaving dictatorships behind and becoming free.  Next were Taiwan and South Korea.  In 1994, it was Nelson Mandela in the South Africa of apartheid.

South Korea. North Korea. Friends and Enemies. Or Is it Vice Versa?

Donald Trump’s policy on Korea continued in the normal way this past week: giving concessions to the North and making absurd demands on the South.  I assume the concessions to the North are because President Trump “loves” North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and thinks that reaching an agreement with the North will cement his reputation as the greatest President ever – though I also assume President Trump already thinks he is.  The demands on the South are because President Trump always thinks somebody is ripping us [him] off and doesn’t understand that foreign policy, and peace, is not a real estate deal or casino contract.  More:

First, North Korea.  Earlier this week, the U.S. and South Korea postponed a major training exercise that was set to begin on Monday.  Defense Secretary Mark Esper said it was “an act of good will … and advancement of peace” but it was not a concession to the North.  As if anybody believes that.  The U.S.  and South Korea cancelled defense exercises last year and nothing happened.  Actually, that is not entirely true.  When we had denuclearization talks with North Korea in October, the first meeting in seven months, North Korea walked out, accusing the U.S. of not making enough concessions.  So, we postponed the military exercises this month.  But it wasn’t a concession.  (If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.)  And, according to The Wall Street Journal, “A few hours after [Defense Secretary] Esper’s remarks, North Korea’s foreign ministry said the regime’s will to maintain diplomacy with the U.S. was shrinking.”  The art of the deal, huh?

A Few Thoughts on Impeachment – And Process

It’s hard to come up with things to write about with impeachment sucking all of the oxygen out of the news.  So, let me make a few comments on impeachment and the impeachment process.  Before I start, though, let me note, as readers of this blog know, I did not vote for Donald Trump in 2016 (I actually decided that in 2015), and I will not vote for him in 2020.  To my comments:

1. So far, President Trump has not done anything that has surprised me all that much.  Appalled me, yes.  Surprised me, no.

The Fall of the Berlin Wall: 30 Years On. #BerlinWall30

This Saturday is the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.  Readers of this blog will know that I have written about the Wall a lot.  You can find what I wrote on the 20th and 25th anniversaries of the fall of the Wall by clicking on “Berlin” in the list of Categories in the right margin.  The 25th anniversary, which we were lucky enough to be in Berlin for, was especially great.  But things seem to have changed since then.

Events are going the wrong direction in parts of eastern Europe and eastern Germany.  Viktor Orban is solidifying control in Hungary.  Law and Justice recently won re-election in Poland.  And in eastern Germany, the AfD increased its vote in state elections.  The populism that has come to the West is also increasing in eastern Europe.  

Trump, Kurds, and Political Principles: Another Question

While I think the U.S. effort in Syria is/was¹ a really good idea, I have wondered what the legal basis for it is.  My best guess is that, if people who understand that kind of question in the Trump administration were asked, they would point to the resolution adopted by Congress right after 9/11.  In other words, the resolution adopted eighteen years ago to go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.  While the resolution was obviously not worded that narrowly, the question still arises whether it really covers what the U.S. troops are/were doing in Syria.

Which got me to thinking.  Given the resounding vote in House of Representatives last week in favor of the resolution criticizing President Trump for withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria, maybe now is an appropriate time for Congress to pass a resolution authorizing and approving what we are/were doing in Syria.  And given the unanimous support among House Democrats for the resolution criticizing President Trump last week, I would expect no problem passing such a resolution this week or next.
---------
¹ I’m not really sure if it is over or not.  See here.
PS  I assume my sarcasm was obvious, but, in case it wasn’t, I wanted to make it clear.

Is Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy Going to Turn Out Good?

No, I don’t really think that President Trump’s foreign policy is going to work – or that it will turn out well.  Janan Ganesh, in the Financial Times, however, comes up with one way President Trump’s foreign policy may work out:

“The world resented American omnipresence before it complained about American dereliction.  Inadvertently, Donald Trump is forcing the end of this ambivalence.  The more the US president unwinds his country’s external commitments, the more other nations see the resultant damage to the global commons. … Countries with historic qualms about US power are going through a chastening education in life without it.

The perverse result: an America First president could bequeath his successor a world that is keener on US leadership than it was before. …

Trump, Kurds, and Political Principles

The House of Representatives voted 354 to 60 on Wednesday to oppose President Trump’s withdrawal from Syria and to call on the Administration to, I don’t know, do something about it (whatever that would involve).  The Democrats voted 225 to 0 to support the resolution, not surprisingly.  More interesting, perhaps, was the 129 to 60 vote among House Republicans in favor of the resolution.  (At least on this, Democrats will find it hard to complain that Republicans are not standing up to President Trump, though I am sure some will try.)

The most interesting question, however, is what would have happened in a reverse situation.  What if a President Warren (or Obama) abandoned allies in Syria (or elsewhere)?  Republicans would, I am sure, vote near-unanimously to criticize a Democratic president.  But how many Democrats would do the same?  Would they vote unanimously in favor of our abandoned allies, as they did with Donald Trump as president?  Would even 68% of the Democrats vote against a Democratic president, as House Republicans did here against a Republican president?

Principle is always easy to stand up for when you get to rip on your political opponents at the same time.  It is harder when it’s the other way around.