| | | | In Defense of Trump's Withdrawal | | By now, the downsides of President Trump's Syria-withdrawal announcement are well known: He has abandoned US allies, created conditions for ISIS to regrow, and sacrificed US security priorities in favor of Turkey's. And yet, Paul Pillar writes at LobeLog, that doesn't mean America has had any good options or easy answers in Syria; Trump may have made his decision haphazardly—reflecting a broken policy process—but "[e]ven a broken clock is right twice a day."
There is a kernel of truth to Trump's claim that America's Kurdish allies were paid well for their support, Pillar writes, as Kurds had a direct interest in fighting ISIS. Now that ISIS has gone underground, it poses a threat which a foreign military presence might provoke rather than solve, Pillar argues, as combat operations have declined in importance. There are reasons to get out of Syria, and criticism of Trump should be qualified, Pillar writes.
If America is ceding its responsibilities to a wayward Turkey, Michael Doran and Michael A. Reynolds write in The Wall Street Journal that Ankara has drifted from its US alliance for legitimate reasons. America chose to work with Kurdish partners in Syria rather than Turkey, for instance, while pursuing a "diffident" Syria strategy as a civil war poured refugees into Turkish territory. | | The Trade-Deal Clock Is Ticking | | In exhorting the US and China to conclude some kind of trade deal—even a narrow one—Bloomberg's editorial board makes a point about timing: With more tariffs set to kick in by year's end, and President Trump set to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping next month, that encounter "could be the last opportunity to restore a workable relationship before the US moves into full pre-election mode, and the prospects for agreement dim further." With economic signs pointing to a global downturn, Bloomberg urges both sides to reach an agreement, however small, just to end the uncertainty that will persist as long as tensions do. For the world economy, "de-escalation is an urgent economic necessity," Bloomberg writes; better to calm things down before 2020 politics make that impossible.
That said, Trump has preferred a sweeping deal, the South China Morning Post notes in its own editorial. To have any hope of reaching one, the paper writes, he'll need to make significant compromises. | | If Brexit Happens, Britain Will Need a Constitution | | The United Kingdom doesn't have a constitution, per se: It has a set of laws and principles, but no single document enshrining them. And yet, Vernon Bogdanor writes for Foreign Policy, Britain has been bound to European laws on human rights and governance, as long as it's been an EU member.
If Brexit goes through, that won't be the case—and British democracy will lose an important safeguard of minority rights. Significantly, British law provides for no judicial review of laws passed by Parliament—meaning there's nothing to prevent a parliamentary majority, reflecting a majority among British people, from passing abusive laws against smaller groups. In Bogdanor's estimation, it might be time for Britain to adopt a codified constitution and put its liberal, democratic principles in one place. | | The Zelensky Call Made Putin's Argument: Democracy Is a Sham | | So writes Molly K. McKew in an exasperated essay for Politico Magazine. Russian President Vladimir Putin has pursued two goals, McKew writes: to keep control of Ukrainian territory and to prove, on the world stage, that Western democracy is corrupt and shambolic. On both fronts, President Trump's call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky played right into Putin's hands. In one fell swoop, McKew writes, Trump has undermined Ukraine's ability to defend itself, by putting US military support in doubt, and tinged America's political system with corruption.
Putin and Russian propaganda have acted to support illiberal leaders "because their self-dealing motivations amplify the firehose of cynicism that now spreads anti-democratic derision across the West," McKew writes; Trump's call with Zelensky fit that bill. | | The Problem With Trump's Military Decision-Making | | Aside from the complaints made to Mark Bowden by unnamed US generals, for his Atlantic story about President Trump's military decision-making, Bowden and his quoted sources identify five problems with how President Trump approaches national security dilemmas, building on those anonymous interviews unconfirmed by CNN.
Trump disdains expertise, Bowden writes, as seen in his first Syria-withdrawal announcement, which left the military grappling with consequences (like how to get its forces out) that Trump seemingly hadn't considered; he almost always relies on his own gut; he employs no coherent strategy, generating chaos without declaring a goal, as in the case of his unpredictable North Korean diplomacy; he is a reflexive contrarian, as seen in his reported resistance to consensus advice offered in briefings; and he has "antiquated" notions of what it means to be a soldier, prizing their perceived "toughness" without considering the military's institutional health—seen, for instance, in his pardoning of an Army lieutenant convicted of killing an Iraqi prisoner. | | | | | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment