Blog Post Compliation: Weeks 10-13

Resignation in the Trump Era

Since taking office, President Trump’s administration has faced a high level of resignations and turn over from high ranking officials. 80% of President Trump’s high level positions are not held by the original person selected for the job when he was taking office in 2017. Some notable people who have resigned from their positions are former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, former Press Secretaries Sean Spicer, and former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis. The reasons for these resignations vary. In the case of Michael Flynn, information came out that he had misled the FBI about the nature and content of his communications with Russian Ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. His tenure as National Security Advisor lasted just 24 days. This was the shortest period of time that anyone had held the office. Former Press Secretary Sean Spicer resigned from his office due to a disagreement with President Trump about their appointment of Anthony Scaramucci as communications director. Former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis resigned from his office due to disagreements with Trump about withdrawing from Syria. Jim Mattis wanted to remain in Syria after the defeat of ISIS in order to prevent the group from reforming but failed to persuade President Trump to remain Syria.

Before entering his fourth year in office, President Trump already has a higher turnover percentage than the last five Presidents of the United States. While a high rate turnover ratio in positions of high government are nothing new, this rate of turnover should be concerning for the citizens of the United States. It signals that the Trump Administration isn’t organized enough to handle the challenges of running the country. Resignations such as General Mattis’ and Secretary Spicer’s also indicate that there are internal disputes within the administration.

President Trump Vs General Mattis

Among the Trump Administration’s many resignations stands former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis. General Mattis was President Trump’s first pick for the Secretary of Defense position. General Mattis disagreed with President Trump on several security issues. He was an opponent to collaboration with Russia and China due to his belief that they were a threat to the American-led order. He was also an opponent of President Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal. But the issue that led to his resignation was that he believed in staying committed to United States allies beyond the fall of the last ISIS held town, specifically the Kurdish forces in Northern Syria. President Trump's reaction was to accelerate General Mattis’ resignation date from February 28th to January 1st and stated that he fired him.

In this case General Mattis was refusing to carry out the plans that President Trump had laid and resigned in protest. While resigning from a government position isn’t uncommon, President Trump’s reaction to this resignation was both unusual and unhelpful to the situation. Moving up the resignation date and going on to say that he had fired General Mattis was petty and insulting. This reaction did little to help civilian-military relations and probably made the point that President Trump didn’t value the imput of his generals. General Mattis has also stated that “he earned his spurs on the battlefield and that President Trump earned his spurs in a letter from a doctor.” Other former officers such as General Colin Powell and General Stanley McChrystal have spoken out against President Trump as well. General Powell has stated that President Trump and the GOP need to get a grip and that Republicans are afraid to speak out despite a foreign policy in shambles. General McChrystal has described President Trump as immoral and dishonest. This illustrates how President Trump has struggled to gain the respect of military officials and how civilian-military relations are deteriorating under the Trump Administration.

Will We See an International Tribunal for ISIS Fighters?

With the Islamic State having lost all of its territory and many of its fighters having been captured in the process. The question of what to do with them has arisen. The idea of an international tribunal has been gaining momentum in Europe. The Kurdish administration has also supported the idea of an international tribunal because they lacked the capacity to prosecute or continue holding the ISIS prisoners. However, the idea of a tribunal hit a road block with the Trump Administration in the United States. This is especially be the case in regards to detaining ISIS fighters. President Trump has stated that he doesn’t want to send ISIS fighters to Guantanamo Bay explaining that he doesn’t want to keep thousands of people that have been captured there and have to spend billions of dollars to continue holding them for the next 50 years. The President has stated that he wants the European countries to take the ISIS fighters back because many of them have originated in European countries. The United States and Russia would also be wary of supporting an international tribunal because if the tribunal is investigating war crimes by ISIS then it may extend its investigation to the regimes that both countries back as well. This might further undermine an already fragile Iraq and Syria.

While a tribunal would provide a powerful way to ensure that ISIS fighters were held accountable, the reality is that an international tribunal for ISIS fighters is more of a long term possibility than a near future goal. An international tribunal would need the victorious parties involved in the conflict to support it which it doesn’t have right now. This may change as the United States brings in a new administration either in 2020 or 2024. Perhaps with an administrative change there will be an ideological change that opens the door for an international tribunal.

The Limits of Think Tank's Solutions for North Korea

North Korea has long been an problem for the international community. It’s nuclear program and missile tests have worried both it’s adversaries and its allies alike. While President Trump appeared to have gotten on the right path with the North Korea government for a time, relations have since cooled and talks have stalled. This raises the question of where to go from here and if the United States should continue to attempt to engage in talks with North Korea or should return to the pre-Trump way of handling the issue by not engaging in direct dialogue. Think tanks have long brought insight into shaping policy around the world including shaping policy on North Korea.

Think tanks such The Council of Foreign relations and The Brooking Institute provide insight into North Korea detailing the United States’ track record with deterrence with the hermit kingdom and why talks with the North Koreans have continued to fail. They also calculate for what a potential nuclear deal would look like and what the obstacles to such a deal would be. In addition, they provide insight into what the North Korea government may be thinking and details on their relationships with countries such as Russia and China. Perhaps most importantly, think tanks provide policy recommendations and options for navigating the United States and North Korean relationship. While this knowledge and insight is undeniably useful in helping the United States navigate through the challenges of attempting to persuade a nuclear armed North Korea to give up its nuclear program, the progress that has been made as a result of it so far has been limited as the North Koreans are still a rouge and nuclear capable nation. While having a strong insight into a situation and the potential options for handling that situation is useful, there’s only so much that can be done if one or both of the parties are unwilling to come to an agreement.   

In Review:

            The last 6 months have been a whirlwind of events relevant to U.S. national security and interest. Everything from protest toppling governments to elections deciding the course of a nation to the impeachment process. Each event has a major impact on their county’s and true consequences will take years to unfold. The last 6 months have been interesting and will shape the next few years.

            Across the world, it has been a season of protest. From Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America major protest have occurred. Hong Kong is best known. In response to an extradition bill allowing extradition to mainland China protest erupted and continued for much of the summer and fall with new demands emerging. When local elections were held prodemocracy, candidates won seats easily. Despite this victory, the situation has not changed China will have full control over Hong Kong in 2047. Will the protest regain steam and how will Beijing respond in the coming year?

              Protest elsewhere have had other major impacts. In Iraq protest against lack of economic opportunities have rocked the country. Hundreds have been killed and the country was shaken. Will the Iraq government survive? Will the firebrand Cleric Moqtada al-Sadr a leader of the protest movement rise to power?

            Elsewhere in the Middle East the U.S. tracked and killed al-Baghdadi leader of the Islamic State. An operational success for the U.S. but it is doubtful if it will change the course of the war. The Islamic State is likely to continue to fracture into cells. How the U.S. withdrawal and Turkish invasion shape the region? Certainty instability will be constant and if U.S. position changes after the 2020 election what will happen then?  

            Protest rocked Latin America as well. The Chilean economy has taken a major hit. Consider the most stable and well performing in the region growth has been reduced to a standstill. Will a constitutional referendum in the spring return stability to the country? In Bolivia Evo Morales was ousted from power after protests about the legitimacy of the election. It depends on who you ask if it was the protest or the military that ousted Morales. Will Bolivia stabilize, or will Morales return and bring chaos to the country. Will the change of government help U.S. policy in Venezuela?     

            The big one for Americans is for only the third time a president has been impeached by the House of Representatives. The Trump impeachment raises hundreds of questions about everything from executive power to who defines the national interest. The only thoughts I can constructively offer is that there is no good result of this process. This will be a partisan mudslinging process. We will emerge from impeachment more divided with an inconclusive result. It’s all bad and we are in for a brutal presidential campaign in 2020. I’m not excited one bit.

            It has been a busy semester. I do not think the world has radically changed from the beginning to the end but everything that has occurred shows the underlying trends. Questions about the viability of democracy and free market capitalism remain a key driver of political activity.   

Congressional Approval of the Largest Defense Budget in US History

The United States in its 243 years has been involved in war(s) for 226 of those years.[1] However, being involved in a war does not mean that the country itself is at war. Currently the United States is involved in multiple conflicts due to the country’s War on Terror. Some of the War of Terror parts have concluded while these seven are ongoing: War in Afghanistan, the War in North-West Pakistan, Second U.S. Intervention in the Somali Civil War , American-led Intervention in Iraq, American-led Intervention in Syria, Yemeni Civil War, and American Intervention in Libya. The definition of when the US is at war has contributed to the debate over the size of the defense budget.

Congress approved a 738-billion-dollar defense budget for the 2020 fiscal year. The last declared war the United States was involved in was World War II. During those years, 1940-1948, the budget at its peak was $82.965 billion in 1945. The current claim that 2019 has the largest defense budget is grossly incorrect. While conflating the 1945 budget using the inflation rate the budget is equivalent in 2019 to  $1.18551454 trillion dollars.[2] This inflation comparisons shows that even though the budget sounds astronomically larger than past budgets it is not. Furthermore, it brings to question how the United States is prepared to fund, hypothetically, a war the country as a whole would be involved into the degree of World War II. Current conflict that the United States’ is involved with does not threaten the security of the its homeland. If the country was to become involved with a war of that magnitude how could the country feasible afford it? Other rising powers, such as China, continually increased its budget year to year to advance its military and defense systems. Though the China 2018 defense budget was $175 billion dollars in China the dollar can buy more than in the United States. Their 175-billion-dollar budget is equivalent to 1.11-trillion-yuan and was the country’s largest defense budget to date. With countries trying to surpass the United States’ military capabilities will the budget continue to exponentially grow to a point where the United states will not be able to support it in “peace times” much less during war times.

---

[1] https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222-out-of-239-years-since-1776/5565946 

I projected upon this article since it was originally published in February of 2015.

[2] https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/