Tuesday, September 10, 2019

Bolton's departure

Surprising in some ways, not in others. It actually looked like a doomed arrangement from the start. Bolton has a set of core principles that drive his policy positions, and his boss - well, we know that he's driven by his craving for self-glorification.

But the fronts on which the rift widened had been increasing for a while:

Back in May, with tensions rising between the U.S. and Iran, Trump’s Fox buddy Tucker Carlson began taking hard shots at him on the air for his hawkishness. It got worse in June when Trump canceled a bombing strike on Iran at the last minute against the advice of Bolton, among others; Carlson took to telling Fox viewers that Bolton was a “bureaucratic tapeworm” and Trump reportedly lamented to a confidant about his own natsec advisors, “These people want to push us into a war, and it’s so disgusting.” A few weeks later, Bolton was conspicuously absent from Trump’s big photo op with Kim Jong Un at the DMZ, having been tasked with a visit to Mongolia at the time instead. (Ironically, Carlson did accompany Trump, albeit as part of Fox’s team.)
Things seemed to deteriorate from there. The most hardcore Republican Bolton critic in Congress, Rand Paul, was deputized by Trump in July to try to broker negotiations with Iran. (Paul is already celebrating Bolton’s termination on Twitter today.) More recently reports being bubbling up that Bolton had been sidelined from the peace process in Afghanistan and was being excluded from meetings. Rumors began circulating that his relationship with Mike Pompeo, a Trump favorite, had collapsed, with natsec deputies unsure who was actually steering the diplomatic ship between the more negotiation-minded Pompeo and the more hardline Bolton.
The final straw may have been Bolton reportedly (and correctly) urging Trump to resist his instincts to invite the Taliban to Camp David for peace talks. If anything finished him off in Trump’s eyes, it may have been the public perception over the last 48 hours that his NSA was right about that and showed “toughness” and judgment that Trump lacked. In fact, Trump may have suspected Bolton or his team of leaking the fact that Bolton opposed Trump’s idea and chose to axe him for that reason. The president hates when his aides get the glory that he thinks he deserves, as Steve Bannon might tell you.
Regarding the above-mentioned set of core principles, adherence to such a thing comes as such a shock to most people in our relativistic, situational age that it's axiomatic that references to Bolton in news stories are going to preface his name with the adjective "hawkish." What that means, as applied to Mr. Bolton, is that he understands this: You never legitimize rogue states or groups. It's folly of the highest order. North Korea, Iran and the Taliban are deadly serious about destroying the United States and imposing an order on the world that would be the antithesis of Western liberalism.

Trumpists employ the term "endless wars" with predictable frequency. But as Andrew McCarthy points out in a piece at National Review today, the fact that the US has been in Afghanistan 18 years does not by itself mean anything:

Afghanistan is not the war. The war is against the jihadist forces of sharia supremacism. We have to fight them wherever they work to stage attacks against the United States, our allies, and our interests.


Per the first excerpt above, Pompeo seems more inclined to see possibility in negotiation, but that may be due to the nature of his current job. I don't think there's a gaping amount of daylight between Bolton and Pompeo in terms of basic worldview. I certainly don't have a fly on the wall reporting back to me from either the White House or the State Department, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to see Pompeo leave under some kind of circumstances sooner rather than later.

11 comments:

  1. Bolton claims he resigned. He's got a likely best seller in his tell-all. Hope he takes off his Matis gloves.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is a predictable and quite understandable affront to your and your ilk's obvious hawkish worldview. Actually if the feds and their brass hadn't screwed Nam up so badly we all might bite. Bolton couldn't get elected dog catcher with his views. That ought to tell you something. He can't even hold a Republican appointment. Of course I know voters are clueless, right?

    ReplyDelete
  3. You don't legitimize rogue nations and rogue groups. And you consistently show allies that you have their backs. That's all John Bolton is about.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wonder where many of us got the idea he is a warmonger. That is the last thing we want. Or need. Get it done diplomatically. We are in a new cold war now and if we really knew how tenuous our cybersystems are, we'd all be crapping in our shorts. The US is mighty and strong, still largely righteous, but we do a lot of nasty crap too in the name of national security.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sometimes seems like your ilk, if not you would welcome WW III if it would grant Nettie's ilk the kind of world you think Jehovah commanded for them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. That's a very disgusting, sick and toxic thing to say.

    It also shows a complete ignorance of what Western civilization is all about. Netanyahu wants nothing more than for Israel, the only pluralistic, economically advanced representative democracy in the Middle East - and the only one rooted in a Biblical understanding of God - to be able to exist without rocket attacks, stabbings, and suicide bombings.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Especually your use of language to express disagreement with my position and that of many others, Jews included.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Over the summer, unprecedented alliances across the political spectrum have made Netanyahu seem more vulnerable than he has since the first time he lost office, in 1999. Should he lose, Israelis concerned about the fate of their democracy will sense an immediate relief. They are tired, most immediately, of his attacks on the judiciary and the police, his attempts to suborn the media, his willingness to tolerate soldiers violating Israel Defense Forces norms in occupation raids, his racist incitement against minorities, and his populist incitement against élites. In May, Benny Gantz, the leader of the new centrist Blue and White Party, which won as many seats as the Likud in April, claimed in his inaugural speech to the Knesset that his battle was “against the new threat to the democratic system’s functioning.” Indeed, it’s hard to find anyone in the opposition who does not see the election as a referendum on democracy.https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-israeli-election-is-next-week-and-unprecedented-alliances-are-moving-against-netanyahu

    ReplyDelete
  9. While Israel may be experiencing, as Avisai puts it, "Netanyahu fatigue," and while these alliances may have some momentum - we shall see next week - it's important to remember why he was elected PM, particularly the second time. Appeasement leaders had been clearly ineffective at stopping intifadas and the rocket barrages across both the southern and northern borders.

    Plus, Avishai's observations in this article must be taken in the context of his overall orientation. He's one of those who really believes in the possibility of peace with Palestinians, which is a fantasy. And he also thinks the whole notion of a "Jewish question" is overblown, that most Jews worldwide today are pretty secular and don't ascribe a right to the ancient homeland promised by God to their desire for a modern state of Israel.

    Ultimately, though, this is not about Netanyahu. Just like, beyond Trump's personal boorishness, the essential question before America is not about Trump. It's never about particular personalities. It's about principles.

    And that's all the off-topic discussion in this comment thread I'm going to participate in.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well then, let's give up on peace and let er blow huh? I thought the topjc concerned perceptions of war mongering.

    ReplyDelete