| | | | Fareed: Democrats, Wise Up On Immigration | | The Republican immigration bill unveiled this week is mean-spirited and bad public policy, Fareed writes in his latest Washington Post column. But that doesn't mean voters don't see the Democrats as the ones out of touch on the issue.
"Immigration is the perfect issue on which Democrats could demonstrate that they care about national unity and identity -- and that they understand the voters for whom this is a core concern," Fareed says. "Look at the Democracy Fund's voter study done in the wake of the 2016 election. If you compare two groups of voters -- those who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 and Hillary Clinton in 2016, and those who voted for Obama in 2012 and Donald Trump in 2016 -- the single biggest divergence on policy is immigration. In other words, there are many Americans who are otherwise sympathetic to Democratic ideas but on a few key issues -- principally immigration -- think the party is out of touch."
"Democrats should find a middle path on immigration. They can battle President Trump's drastic solutions but still speak in the language of national unity and identity. The country's motto, after all, is 'out of many, one' -- not the other way around."
| | The Danger of the Trump Calls Leak | | President Trump is responsible for the self-destructive cycle the executive branch finds itself in. But that doesn't mean that it was acceptable to leak transcripts of calls with two world leaders, argues David Frum in The Atlantic. In fact, doing so has not only undermined Trump, but America's interests, too.
"Leaking the transcript of a presidential call to a foreign leader is unprecedented, shocking, and dangerous. It is vitally important that a president be able to speak confidentially -- and perhaps even more important that foreign leaders understand that they can reply in confidence," Frum writes.
And even though "no high national-security secret has been betrayed in these transcripts, the workings of the U.S. government have been gravely compromised, and in ways that will be very difficult to repair even after Trump leaves office. Trump's violation of basic norms of government has driven people who would otherwise uphold those norms unto death to violate them in their turn. Contempt for Trump's misconduct inspires counter-misconduct." "Talk about a political tin ear. The President of the United States asks the President of Mexico to lie in public just to protect Trump with his base. The 'ask' reflects a remarkable degree of both naiveté and cynicism. For a President who seems obsessed with playing to his base, it never seemed to occur to him that Pena Nieto has to protect not only his own base, but also his credibility and standing among all Mexicans."
| | Is China Shipping Its Emissions Problems Overseas? | | | China is making notable progress on carbon emissions, not least by stopping the construction of more than 100 coal power plants. The trouble is, it may be exporting the problem, suggest Sagatom Saha and Theresa Lou in Foreign Affairs.
"At this rate, Beijing is expected to hit peak carbon emission levels by 2025 -- five years earlier than planned -- and has been heralded as the new leader for global climate action," they write.
"Yet at the same time, Chinese companies are on track to build roughly 140 coal plants in other countries, including Egypt and Pakistan, which hardly burn coal at present. Despite increasing international consensus on climate action, the receiving countries remain eager to find inexpensive opportunities to fuel economic growth and meet power needs. For many developing nations, coal remains the cheapest fuel. But introducing or ramping up the use of coal, which is the dirtiest fossil fuel, would be a nightmare for them." | | Why Arming Ukraine Is a Bad Idea | | Calls from U.S. officials for the United States to arm Ukraine are misguided. Not only would the limited arms likely to be offered be of little practical effect, but it would place the United States in a strategic bind, Michael Brendan Dougherty suggests in National Review.
"[G]iving Ukraine some anti-tank weaponry would not meaningfully deter Moscow's aggression. Russia is a massive land power, with over 20,000 tanks. The Russian state and the Russian public have both proven willing to lose troops in battle over the last two decades of vicious wars in Chechnya. Russia has many economic levers of influence over Ukraine, ones that the West could not help to match without now-unthinkable commitments of political will and ready cash. And sending arms to Kiev would play right into Putin's narrative of Western meddling," Dougherty writes.
"Ultimately, Ukraine is of peripheral interest to the United States and Western Europe even if annoying Russia has incredible appeal right now. Giving it arms, or extending to it a kind of quasi-membership in NATO might irritate Russia, but it would also create a new dependent for the U.S. And it could embolden Ukrainian nationalists to do something foolish, the way that Mikhail Sakashvilli jeopardized Georgia in 2007 by acting provocatively once he thought he had the backing of the West."
| | Trump Risks Repeating Obama Mistake: WSJ | | President Trump's reluctance to back his military advisers' call for a modest surge in Afghanistan is understandable after 16 years of conflict. But it has dangerous echoes of his predecessor's misguided approach, the Wall Street Journal editorializes.
"Barack Obama undermined his own 2009 surge of troops with a fixed exit date, and then tried to time the departure of all U.S. troops to his own White House exit," the Journal argues.
"This told the Taliban to wait the U.S. out, and the insurgents have since regained much ground they lost during the surge. Mr. Obama recognized his mistake enough to keep 8,400 troops in the country, but he limited their duties mainly to training and pursuing Islamic State enclaves. We're told there are only about a dozen F-16s in the country, and the Afghan military lacks crucial close-air support during Taliban engagements.
"Mr. Trump has given his field commanders more freedom, and they can now pursue Taliban fighters. But the Afghan forces are still losing ground in much of the country and need more support."
| | America's Canine Security Problem | | The demand for bomb-sniffing dogs has soared in recent years. And with the Transport Security Administration having shuttered its own breeding program for budget reasons, America is struggling to meet the demands of heightened security, Kate Murphy writes in the New York Times.
"Security experts warn that the supply of these dogs is dwindling worldwide and that the United States is especially vulnerable because it relies primarily on brokers who source dogs from Eastern Europe," Murphy writes. She cites a former TSA official who says the best dogs typically go to whoever will pay the most – and that's usually China or Saudi Arabia.
"Technological alternatives have so far proven inadequate. Despite decades of trying, researchers have yet to develop a machine as exquisitely sensitive and discerning as a dog's nose. Nor can a robot rove with the agility and ease of a dog," Murphy adds. | | | | | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment