| | | | Fareed: Will Trump Repeat a Tragic Mistake? | | President Trump appears to view international negotiations like he did business deals: he must win, and the other side must lose, Fareed writes in his latest Washington Post column. But President Lyndon Johnson's refusal to reverse course in Vietnam underscores the folly of such an approach.
"[B]ecause the president of the United States could not think of a way to admit that the United States needed to reverse course, Johnson increased troop levels in Vietnam from fewer than 20,000 to more than 500,000, tearing apart Indochina, American society and his presidency," Fareed writes. "The example is dramatic, but it is generally true that in foreign policy, when the United States is confronted with a choice between backing down and doubling down, it follows the latter course."
"In two crucial arenas, North Korea and Iran, Trump has dramatically raised the risks for the United States, and for no good reason. Determined to seem tougher than his predecessor, he has set out maximalist positions on both countries. He wants a totally denuclearized North Korea and an Iran that stops making ballistic missiles and stops supporting proxy forces in countries such as Syria, Iraq and Yemen. There is a vanishingly small possibility that North Korea and Iran will simply capitulate because Washington demands it. And if they don't, what will Trump do? Will he back down or double down? And where will this escalation end?"
"Trump seems to view international negotiations as he does business deals. He has to win. But there is one big difference. In the international arena, the other person also has to worry about domestic politics. He or she cannot appear to lose either."
| | Putin Makes His Anti-West Pitch | | | For years, Vladimir Putin has tried to paint Russia as a trusting victim exploited by an abusive West. But in a major foreign policy speech on Thursday, he added a new wrinkle: a "pitch for a broader, anti-Western coalition," suggests Leonid Bershidsky for Bloomberg View. Putin "is talking to fellow leaders and elites in countries that are not solidly part of the Russian or Western orbits, like some Middle Eastern nations who feel burned by their brief experiment with opening up during the Arab Spring. He's telling them not to trust the U.S. unless they want to end up humiliated too. He's telling them that Russia is willing to treat them as equals, willing to intervene quickly if they face internal and external threats as it did for Assad in Syria," Bershidsky writes. "If Putin's offer of Russia as an alternative center of gravity sounds a bit implausible, it's worth remembering that, just three years ago, so did the largely successful Syria intervention, which has revived Russia's role as a go-to power in the Middle East. Talk of a pivotal Russian role in tilting last year's U.S. presidential election only makes Russia look more attractive as a nimble, tech-savvy alternative to the U.S. in the eyes of underleveraged rulers who fear the U.S. might seek to undermine them." | | How Team Trump Can Stop the Next Iraq War | | The United States has no time to rejoice in the defeat of ISIS in Raqqa. If it fails to fill the void left by the terror group, then Iran will be happy to do so, The Economist editorializes. So far, though, the signs aren't good.
"America has to step in to stop a new conflict in Iraq, between Shia Arabs and Kurds, taking root amid the rubble of the old one between Shia and Sunni Arabs. It will need great skill to help resolve the dispute over lands claimed by the governments in Erbil and Baghdad, and more broadly, to settle the question about how Iraq should be run. This will set a precedent for ending the war in Syria, determine the chances of jihadists returning and affect the regional power balance," The Economist argues.
"Granted, confronting Iran on the ground is risky; it knows how to use proxy militias to bleed American troops. But Mr Trump's blowhard talk risks provoking Iranian hardliners anyway. Right now, having done much to crush the jihadists in Iraq and Syria, America is letting Iran reshape the Arab world to its liking."
| | The Biggest Global Killer Isn't What You Think | | | Around 9 million people died prematurely in 2015 because of diseases caused by pollution – 16 percent of early global deaths that year, and three times more than died from malaria, tuberculosis and AIDS combined, according to a new study in the Lancet. The study adds: "Economic metrics such as willingness-to-pay and analyses of the long-term cost of pollution, show that pollution control does not, in fact, incur an economic cost but instead offers a sound financial investment. In regions where air pollution control has been implemented, large-scale benefits have accrued. For example, in the USA, a US$30 benefit is estimated to have resulted from each $1 invested in controlling air pollution. This benefit has been seen in health, productivity, and life expectancy." | | How Russia Gave America a Taste of Cold War Cat and Mouse | | | A recent cat and mouse game between U.S. warships and a Russian submarine harkened back to the Cold War. With "a resurgence in Russian submarine technology" it could also be a sign of things to come, reports Julian E. Barnes for the Wall Street Journal. "With both U.S. and Russian forces crossing paths in Syria, each pursuing distinct and sometimes conflicting agendas, the battlefield has grown more complicated. The Russians have given only limited warnings of their strikes to the U.S.-led coalition. That has required the U.S. and its allies to keep a close eye on Russian submarines hiding in the Mediterranean," Barnes writes. "Nuclear-armed submarines are the cornerstone of the U.S. and U.K.'s strategic deterrent. For the U.S., these subs make up one leg of the so-called triad of nuclear forces -- serving, essentially, as a retaliatory strike force. "Smaller attack submarines like the Krasnodar, armed with conventional torpedoes and cruise missiles, can pose a more tangible threat to U.S. aircraft carriers, which are the Navy's most important weapon to project American power around the world." | | Why NATO Should Relax About Turkey | | | Ties between Turkey and fellow NATO members are fraught. But there's no need to worry about Turkish plans to buy a Russian missile system. From Afghanistan, to the Qatar dispute to Somalia, Ankara is becoming a regional security player – the U.S. and others should welcome that, argues Samuel Hickey in Foreign Affairs. "Turkey's acquisition of the S-400 [missile system] is, in short, a product of its aggravation over what it perceives to be NATO's failure to recognize Ankara's new role in providing regional security," Hickey writes. "The S-400 is not preparation for war, but it allows Turkey to engage in regional conflicts while ensuring it can respond to new threats if relations with NATO members continue to deteriorate. [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan has shown initiative in coordinating regional security efforts and NATO members should seek to engage Turkey in these efforts. Doing so will help further the alliance's security interests and help NATO critics of Erdogan maintain influence in Turkey's domestic politics." | | | | | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment