Secretary Clinton’s foreign policy speech yesterday was not your traditional campaign foreign policy address. It became quickly clear that it was really her way of going on the offensive against Trump and using her remarks to draw some very distinct contrasts between his multiple positions on every issue and her positions. Others, in many places and from many different perspectives, have provided some interesting takes on her remarks, but I want to put the politics aside and focus a bit on what policy components there were in the speech.
After her initial introductory remarks, including a few specific comparisons between Trump’s positions and hers, Secretary Clinton started not with foreign policy, but with domestic concerns. She quickly focused on how to extend economic growth through fixing America’s long neglected infrastructure, shoring up education and educational opportunities, and investing in research and development, which she referred to as innovation. She then contrasted this with a discussion of Trump’s tax plan, which would add $30 trillion to the debt.
There is a very good reason why every foreign policy address should begin with a discussion of domestic policy, including economic issues: resources (means). The shorthand we use for policy – domestic or foreign – is ends, ways, and means. What are one’s objectives (ends), how does one go about trying to achieve them (ways), and how does one pay to do so (means). Right now American policies, both foreign and domestic, are constrained by the issue of means. Specifically the fetish with the debt and deficit that has led to our elected decision makers, in pursuit of their own ideological goals, to pursue economic and budgetary self-defeating and non-sensical policies that have hampered growth and starved all levels of government of the funds necessary to provide for both the general welfare and the common defense.
A number of the regular commenters are very concerned that Secretary Clinton might be too hawkish on foreign policy and defense issues. She may very well be, but she, or any prospective president, is constrained by the ability to spend to achieve their policy objectives. It is very hard to be hawkish if you cannot get an Authorization to Use Military Force, let alone a Declaration of War, and a dedicated funding stream (both revenue and spending) for the proposed operations through Congress. Focusing on domestic issues, including initiatives, such as spending on infrastructure, which will have an economic multiplier effect, makes sense if one is looking for ways to relieve some of the economic resource constraints that we have allowed to be placed upon ourselves. It is also good domestic policy in and of itself.
Secretary Clinton went on to discuss the need to maintain and safeguard our alliances. Not just for the fight against the Islamic State, but for responding to any number of other opportunities, challenges, and threats. And these alliances are not just military, though many, like NATO, have a primary military focus. The alliances and partnerships we have established are intended to facilitate diplomacy and trade, as well as bind our partners to us and us to our partners in order to reduce the likelihood of international conflict. Moreover, the purpose of our diplomatic, economic, and military alliances are to protect and safeguard the international order. It is true that both the post World War II and post Cold War international order were established and are maintained in America’s best interests. And while this reality, and Secretary Clinton’s willingness to maintain and incrementally improve it, may give some pause, the bigger question about the international order and the global system is what would we replace the current one with? Until that can be answered, and a coherent case made for why it would be at least as stable and how we could achieve this new international status quo, we are left with the reality of the current post World War II and post Cold War global system.
Secretary Clinton did lay out some specific policy positions. If elected president, she would continue to aggressively pursue the campaign against the Islamic State, al Qaeda, and other international terrorist threats. Under her leadership the US would also continue to push for and promote its best ideals and values and would rely first on diplomacy, economic, and informational power. None of these are proposals outside the norms and boundaries of traditional American foreign policy discourse. Secretary Clinton also came out firmly on the side of supporting Israel. She stated that Israel is our strongest, democratic ally in the Middle East, which was a subtle jab at Erdogan in Turkey. And she clearly indicated that the US would not be neutral towards Israel and the Palestinians, which was a domestic politics two-fer: aiming to distinguish herself from Trump’s debate response about being neutral and demonstrating her orthodoxy on one of America’s domestic politics litmus tests.
I think the most important portions of the speech, from a policy perspective, were the sections were she described the hard, often undiscussed efforts of diplomacy. She repeatedly referred to work with the Japanese and the South Koreans in order to shore up Asia-Pacific regional responses to North Korea. There was also a solid recounting of how the State Department under her leadership reinvigorated the diplomatic process with Iran in regard to its nuclear energy and suspected weapons program and did the hard, slow work of establishing the conditions that allowed the US and its allies in the P5+1 to successfully conclude an agreement with Iran in 2015.
This is very significant. In Secretary Clinton, the US has a potential president with extensive, highest level diplomatic experience. This would be a major change from the experiences that past presidential candidates and presidents brought with them onto the campaign trail and into office. And it is likely to produce a very different type of approach to foreign policy than even President Obama’s, even as Secretary Clinton would likely build off of and extend his initiatives. We have not had a President who had been the Secretary of State in a very long time and that may produce a very interesting and unique American foreign policy should Secretary Clinton be elected.
Finally, if you really want to understand someone’s position on their policies, you go to the source documents. For foreign policy in the US that means the National Security Strategy, the National Military Strategy, the Quadrennial Defense Review, and the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review. The reason we have a Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review is Secretary Clinton. When she took over as Secretary of State she recognized that the US’s diplomatic and development efforts needed to be focused on, thought about, developed, and presented on equal footing as the efforts of the Department of Defense. The first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review was released in 2010 and pdf copy can be found at the link below marked QDDR. If you read through it, or just the executive summary, you will find a pretty good baseline for Secretary Clinton’s views on US foreign policy; especially as she created and ushered this strategic document into the American foreign policy milieu.
Baud
Good stuff. Thanks, Adam.
redshirt
For any Democrat concerned about Clinton’s foreign policy, I’d ask, what exactly are you concerned with? Drones? Or that she’ll invade Iraq again?
Ramping Up
Crooked Hillay’s speech was horrible, and for all the talk of Trump having a horrible week he is within the MOE in Florida, among other swing states, and too close to call nationally.
What gives if Trump is so awful and Clonton so great?
Baud
This is a question that’s not asked or answered enough, as far as I can see.
Villago Delenda Est
The single biggest reason to support Hilz over Teh Donald is that the rest of the world will not start arming itself in fear of Teh Donald’s thin skin being mussed and he starts lobbing nukes.
Not that I think the military will tolerate such things, mind you, which is why we shouldn’t even go there in the first place.
Villago Delenda Est
@Ramping Up: RealClearPolitics: Rethuglican dogshit, like yourself.
redshirt
@Baud: That’s why calls for Japan to defend themselves that Trump is making are super dangerous. America essentially underwrites defense for the large collection of nations that we trade with.
If we were to give up that commitment, you can bet you’d start having regional rivalries in Asia and Europe sooner than later.
Adam L Silverman
@Baud: That and, from a US perspective, what public goods are there or should there be in 21st Century America and what is the best way to deliver them?
WaterGirl
Thanks, Adam. I really appreciate the methodical perspective you bring in breaking things down to plain english:
I have one question, though. I am not clear about clinton’s position with regard to I/P (from the paragraph below).
dollared
@redshirt: My objections are pretty basic: 1) Democrats should be trying to get out of the $1.2T annual budget straightjacket that is our Military + Intelligence + Homeland Security. We spend at least 30% more than is sensible, and we could do better things with the money, such as college and infrastructure. Bill Clinton understood this, so I’m hoping Hillary can figure it out. So far she hasn’t 2) Israel. No, we should not be doing their bidding. It is bad for the US. 3) Suppression of democracy in Latin America. Obama’s record on Haiti, Venezuela, Honduras, Paraguay and Brazil is all right of center and bad for the democracy movements across Latam. Clinton was at the center of it all. Obama’s move on Cuba is a lone bright light in the midst of a far too conservative foreign policy. It’s not yet clear that Clinton is willing to improve our foreign policy at all.
Baud
@redshirt: @Adam L Silverman:
Block grants to our allies, of course!
Ramping Up
@Villago Delenda Est:
Mason-Dixon poll is a GOP plant? Lol.
Tilda Swinton's Bald Cap
@Ramping Up: You need some pancakes.
redshirt
It’s so sad what’s happening in Turkey. At one point I had such high hopes they could bridge the West and Islam, but it seems like so many people/governments, they’re succumbing to religious fundamentalism.
Amir Khalid
It bothers me that Hillary follows the American orthodoxy of favouring Israel over
Palestine. I believe Israel has as much right to defend itself as any other nation, but no more than that. One could argue that Israel has been no more grateful or accommodating to the US than necessary in return for its position as a US beneficiary, and sometimes (particularly in recent years and under Bibi) not even that. Some more evenhandedness is long overdue.
@Ramping Up:
Who is this Hillay Clonton you speak of?
Adam L Silverman
@redshirt: We have the rivalries now. What we do is ensure that the Sea Lines of Commerce and Communication (SLOCC) in the Asia-Pacific region remain open, which reduces the chances of regional disputes turning violent. And that’s why the stuff with the Senkakus and Daioyu Islets is so complicated. Most of the states in the region can make a claim, but in the end all of those claims just create regional friction. So being engaged diplomatically, economically – including developmentally, and militarily keeps the SLOCC open and the region stable.
redshirt
@Amir Khalid: Me too. Especially now that the Israeli government functions much like a branch of the Republican Party. That said, I’m not sure what other partner exists in the region that one could partner with.
Cacti
@Amir Khalid:
Israel has long been the tail that wags the dog of US foreign policy. Obama was considered (by some) to be harsh on Israel for not reflexively agreeing with everything Bibi wanted. Yeah, it sucks.
WaterGirl
@Amir Khalid: Two theories: 1) they don’t teach spelling at troll school, or 2) they teach them that a few typos here or there add authenticity.
How i wish that no one would ever reply to a troll again. I am kind of liking the pancake response by Tilda Swinton’s Bald Cap – I have seen that in more than one thread. Every day could be a recipe thread!
BillinGlendaleCA
@Amir Khalid:
I agree, but it won’t happen due to domestic political considerations.
Adam L Silverman
@WaterGirl: Honestly I’m not clear either. She mentioned that we would continue to guarantee their safety, which I took as actually aimed at the Iranians, especially as she also mentioned the distrust but verify concept she’s talked about before. What was unclear was whether this extended to just guaranteeing their safety or also that we took their side in the attempt to broker a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I don’t really think it was meant as the latter, but ambiguous enough that everyone could hear what they wanted to hear in the remark. From professional experience I can tell you that the US is officially conflicted on this. And that includes the State Department. We have the Consulate General in Jerusalem, which is the embassy in all but name to the Palestinians (it was originally the embassy to the Ottoman Empire). Its job is to work with the Palestinians. We have the Embassy to Israel in Tel Aviv. Its job is to work with the Israelis. And they do not agree on how the US should proceed because of their very different missions.
redshirt
@dollared: I disagree with your 1. When we spend less on defense, other nations will start spending more, leading to more conflict. When we underwrite European security, for instance, we help assure inter-European rivalries are kept to a minimum, and in the long run we make more money off that then we spend. We could still invest in domestic infrastructure, etc, while spending the same on defense if we just taxed the rich at a fairer level.
Your 2. I hate our Israel policy too, but ultimately it’s about oil, and thus a Global Warming issue, and the entire problem could be solved by pursuing solutions to the world’s dependence on fossil fuels.
Your 3. I’m not familiar enough with the US’s actions in Latin America in the last 8 years to comment. Agreed that Cuba is a big deal.
redshirt
@Adam L Silverman: The rivalries exist now because of the ever growing clout of China. Adding a Japan on its own to the mix would only result in more conflict. We should in fact be looking to reduce China’s clout by increasing the US manufacturing base specifically by focusing on attacking climate change. For example, new plastics.
magurakurin
@dollared:
seriously, how long have you been alive? I’ve been here 54 years on the planet…I’d given up anything changing in regard to Cuba in my life time ages ago.
I really don’t know what to tell you. Vote for Trump and hope that the real revolution begins, I guess.
Baud
@Adam L Silverman:
There isn’t a president who wouldn’t want to be the one who brokered a peace deal. Even Trump would love to be the one who did that. Maybe the GOP will put someone up in 2020 that is pro-Armageddon, but we haven’t hit that waystation on the road to Peak Wingnut yet.
Fred B.
Calling Hillary a little Hawkish is like calling Trump a fibber.
For gods sake she dragged Albright and Kissinger out. And the rumor is that Nuland (spelling?) would be her Sec of State is frightening. I can’t support her because of that. I can’t support Trump. I think I need another drink
Mike in NC
@Ramping Up: Still Ramping Up, Rolling On, and Jerking Off. Please proceed, asshole. Or as your moron idol would beg, “Please applaud”.
NotMax
Nothing to add, but a couple of pedantic asides.
It’s two-fer, not two for.
“Off of” is one of those constructions which makes editors’ teeth gnash. How about “Clinton would likely build on and extend his initiatives” instead?
dollared
@magurakurin: Hunh? Why shouldn’t I expect Hillary Clinton to be at least as sensible as Bill Clinton on foreign policy? Currently we are well to the right of Bill.
BillinGlendaleCA
@magurakurin: Nach Trump uns.
Adam L Silverman
@redshirt: That’s actually the argument I actually make with friends and/or colleagues that are skeptical on climate change or deny it: “do you want us to pay royalty and licensing fees to the Chinese for all the alternative energy, related, and spin off technologies they create because they are taking it seriously and doing so?” That normally changes the direction of the conversation.
WaterGirl
@Adam L Silverman: Thank you. I would like to see the US stop doing Israel’s bidding and stop ignoring the plight of the Palestinians. I am not against Israel, but they have gone too far; their rights should not trump human rights of Palestinians.
Baud
@BillinGlendaleCA: Nach Trump, Dystopie
BillinGlendaleCA
@Mike in NC: It’s gone from a candidate who said “please clap” to one that had the clap.
Ramping Up
So again, even with Trump’s supposedly bad week, the horse race hasn’t moved an inch! Still Too Close To Call!
Adam L Silverman
@Baud: I don’t disagree. The issue is always, given our security guarantees to Israel and the special relationship, are we willing and able to proceed as an honest broker for negotiations and if so, can we convince everyone else of that so we can proceed and actually make progress towards a resolution.
Cacti
@Fred B.:
Crawl inside your bottle and never come back out, noob.
some guy
Hooray, 4 more years of funding apartheid.
Adam L Silverman
@NotMax: I’ll fix the former. I’ve been an editor, I’m keeping the latter. Of course I’m also very pro teeth gnashing.
dollared
@redshirt: I don’t think you know the numbers. We spend more on military and intelligence than ALL OTHER HUMANS ON THE PLANET, COMBINED. Almost all analysts, (other than those in the Republican Party, defense contractors and the military itself), agree that a 10-20% reduction would result in no reduction in security whatsoever. And $200B per year could fund college for everyone, and everything on the infrastructure and clean energy wish list, leading to hundreds of thousands of living wage jobs. That means that 30% is achievable if we were smart – but these days I’d settle for 20%.
lollipopguild
Trolling, Trolling, over the bounding main……..
Davebo
@redshirt:
That’s interesting. I’d love a little more information on the effort against climate change and new plastics.
Fair Economist
The QDDR has an interesting section about privatizing government services:
Halliburton and whatever Blackwater’s renamed itself to this week aren’t going to like a Clinton presidency.
Cacti
@Ramping Up:
Looks like the bounce is coming back to earth.
Briefly tied, now back to trailing double digits. ;-)
burnspbesq
@dollared:
Bull. We’ve been essentially hands-off in that region under Obama. in fact, I would argue that we haven’t been active enough in democracy promotion in the region, and we could start by telling the truth about Morales and Correa, who are as despotic as they come.
WaterGirl
@Fred B.: As someone said on an earlier thread:
Perhaps that will clarify things for you re: who to vote for in November.
Roger Moore
An interesting point. I looked it up, and Clinton would be the first former Secretary of State to be elected president since before the Civil War. It’s actually surprising how membership in the cabinet has fallen off as a stepping stone to the presidency. As far as I can tell, the last former head of any cabinet department to be elected president was Hoover.
On the bigger issue of the importance of our international relationships in preserving peace and leading to greater general prosperity, I think that’s correct but that Trumpites will never accept it. The basic problem is that the Trumpian worldview is strictly zero sum. They look at the world as a whole series of win/lose situations. If Japan and Korea are doing better, it must be because we’re doing worse. If our security guarantees are the reason they’re doing better, we’re suckers because we’re spending our money to make ourselves worse off.
Schlemazel Khan
Does Cramping up seem to be phoning it in recently? It seems like he is not even really trying/ Perhaps he has lost the enthusiasm since the brinks truck got their transmissions fixed & are no longer stuck in R
Davebo
@Adam L Silverman:
I have no problem with the security guarantees to Israel. I do however have major issues with the “special relationship”.
Larison hammers on it constantly but I think he’s right. Israel is not an ally. They are indeed a good old fashioned client state and if they want to continue to reap the benefits of that relationship which are beyond significant they need to start acting like one.
Cacti
@dollared:
If only we didn’t have handmaidens of the arms industry, voting to shovel billions at garbage like the F-35.
Adam L Silverman
@WaterGirl: We don’t ignore the plight of the Palestinians, but what we do just doesn’t get a lot of coverage. Almost no one knows about the Consulate General in Jerusalem and most that do just think its like every other consulate, which it isn’t. We have a dedicated security force, police, and emergency services training program, where we’ve built an international coalition to work with the Palestinians, in place that never gets any press whatsoever. And we and our coalition partners provide a lot of other aide, but again it doesn’t get a lot of attention or press, so almost no one knows about it.
redshirt
@Adam L Silverman: If Barack Hussein Obama can’t be seen as an honest negotiator between the two sides, I don’t know what American leader could, if any. At this point, I think only a change in the oil economy will cause us to change our Israeli policy.
dollared
@burnspbesq: Nice to see that you are Falangist. Not surprising.
christopher murphy
@redshirt: Yes, yes + Syria + Libya.
dollared
@Cacti: I hear you. It is a tragedy. People just don’t understand the opportunity cost of this kind of pork barrel defense spending.
NotMax
@dollared
One of the many pernicious legacies of Dubya/Cheney was redefining the floor for the Pentagon budget at $600 billion, along with commensurate jumps in the black budget.
Emma
Can anyone explain the Kissinger thing to me? As far as I understand it, two former Secretaries of State met at a social function and one said to another, “congrats you ran a tight ship” and the second said to a third person “hey, so-and-so said I ran a tight ship”. Is this supposed to mean that second is now ideologically married to the first?
Prescott Cactus
Adam,
Thanks for the heads up on the QDDR. The executive summary said a lot.
Cacti
@dollared:
Does it hurt your feelings that the Bolivarian Revolution has turned Venezuela into the sewer of the western hemisphere, little flower?
Adam L Silverman
@dollared: Given that the price tag just to bring all of our currently existing infrastructure up to 2016 code is estimated to cost $2 trillion, I don’t think you estimate of costs is accurate. And that’s just to get everything up to code, not to extend its life by going beyond that. I do not degree that there isn’t stuff that could be cut, but unless/until we decide we are actually going to spend on things that have a fiscal multiplier, the only consistent spending we do now that has a significant fiscal multiplier is defense spending. That’s why we call it weaponized Keynesianism. Again, I agree we should cut smartly and in addition to that do the infrastructure spending, not just because we need to do it, not just because the financing available to the government to do so now, amortized, essentially means the lenders would be paying us to do what we know has to be done, but also because it improves our national security. All of this, however, is a post for another day.
redshirt
@dollared: I’m aware. Our military spending is the only “infrastructure” spending the Republicans will allow us to make.
Davebo
@Adam L Silverman:
True. But a LOT of people know of the long going push to move the Embassy itself to Jerusalem and I think most also realize the strategy behind that push.
Baud
@Adam L Silverman:
Not sure if domestic politics will allow this right now.
BillinGlendaleCA
@Emma:
That’s what I’ve been told by my progressive betters.
debbie
@redshirt:
You didn’t ask me, but you’re wrong on Israel. It’s nothing to do with oil. I want less one sidedness than Clinton has ever shown. And I want something more than a military response to ISIS. Adam’s post is the most informative I’ve read on the speech, but it reinforces why she wasn’t my first choice.
Baud
@Adam L Silverman: Defense spending will never be cut unless you can get and keep a Democratic Congress. Even then, it will be a long slog.
Adam L Silverman
@Fair Economist: Its a poorly kept secret that the mass privatization doesn’t really save us money. For somethings it does. For instance, if you contract to have essential services done across Federal agencies in the greater DC area – janitorial, cafeteria/food services, basic building security, some IT, basic administrative support, etc – you can save money. But once you start getting past the GS 11 or 12 level and once you go beyond one year, the costs can start to really eat away at the benefits.
Adam L Silverman
@Roger Moore: 160 years. There’s an interesting article at Smithsonian Magazine about this:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-do-secretaries-state-make-such-terrible-presidential-candidates-180952327/?no-ist
The title is a bit misleading. Editors, clickbait, etc.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
Thanks for posting this Adam. It’s very well done, and it’s a clear example of why you get paid the big bucks. ;-D
I want to pick a nit though.
I don’t think Turkey entered her mind at all in that section. Relations with Turkey are a complicated mess, and Erdogan is making it more complex every day. I think she would prefer to put pressure on him behind the scenes and give him the cold shoulder in public.
She said:
(emphasis added)
That seemed to me to be an utterly conventional statement of the public position of the US wrt to Israel. Namely: they don’t need to worry, we’ll protect them from Iran.
While it could be read as a statement of neutrality, it could also be a very subtle shot across the bow to Bibi. “Israel’s security is non-negotiable, but everything else is” is one possible future variation. Will she go there? Dunno. But she’s left the door open for the US again being an honest broker in peace negotiations.
She often strikes me as a little too hawkish, but if one carefully reads what she says rather than how she says it, it’s sometimes not quite so scary. E.g. her statements about Kim:
What I take from that is that any action we take against Kim won’t be the US alone. She’s not some cowboy looking for a fight. She understands the value and importance of alliances and allies and of working together. If she can’t get others to go along, she won’t go it alone.
At least I hope that’s what she’s saying!!
Thanks again.
Cheers,
Scott.
? Major Major Major Major ?
Testing… 123…
Adam, could you remove normal M^4 from spam, if I’m in there? I think I might have upset the Akismet gods.
redshirt
@Davebo: I mean only in by attacking climate change directly, the US would (could) build out a new massive domestic manufacturing base – for instance, re-doing the entire electrical grid. A massive, but eminently doable project. This would have carry-on affects for all US manufacturing.
Two: I mentioned plastics only as an example, but a big one. Most of Chinese manufacturing for the US is plastics based. Environmentally horribly plastics. By changing towards a bio-degrable plastic we could once again build new US manufacturing on that standard, depriving China of that revenue.
To sum, without any military or trade hostilities or threatening we could reduce possible conflicts in Asia by reducing China’s revenues.
Adam L Silverman
@Davebo: I agree. They are a client and, to be honest, an often unreliable one at that.
Davebo
@Adam L Silverman:
There’s also the problem on the military side of reliability of services especially when contractors are in a position to severely hamper operations. It’s not like it’s never happened before.
debbie
@Emma:
Kissinger is Evil. Kissinger is a War Criminal. Clinton’s touting his approval of her is not a plus, in my opinion.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
Dollared is one of the looooooooooong time kooks of this blog.
Back in 2011 he spent months moaning and groaning that Reagan was better than Obama.
He always cites some far left fringe conspiracy site like counterpunch or consortiumnews.
And as a hobby he likes to go on and on about Cuba being better off under Castro then any other form of government. And when people would say if Cuba is so superior why don’t you move there, he would cite the travel ban. Well the ban is lifted and still hasn’t moved to his Socialist paradise. I’m shocked! I’m shocked!
Sadly, his emotional IQ froze in the late 60s/early 70s just like the other bern-outs.
Adam L Silverman
@Emma: You’re tracking right along. Secretary Kissinger said something nice about Secretary Clinton in the manner in which she ran the Department of State. That’s now been spun, by everyone and their cousin and from all ideological directions, as Secretary Clinton is actively cultivating Secretary Kissinger.
As for Secretary Albright, I have no idea why she’s become the bete noir to some and a weapon to beat Secretary Clinton up with.
dollared
@Adam L Silverman: Adam, I’m not following you. $200B per year doesn’t instantly add up to $2T, so we shouldn’t try to use defense savings at all? And it’s quite clear that the multiplier from defense spending is significantly lower than from infrastructure spending, since there is no return from utilization of the end product of defense spending. So it would be better for the economy and our workers, and it would pay for *almost* all of the needed infrastructure, to cut defense spending and use a majority of the savings on infrastructure. Yes?
redshirt
@debbie: It has almost everything to do with oil. Without the need to secure middle eastern oil, Israel would be mostly irrelevant. Israel serves as a counterpoint to Arab governments and a coin to play in foreign funding/diplomacy. Without the need to maintain this balance of rivals, the region would be mostly ignored.
Yes, I get the Republicans play it up as much more than that, but at base, that’s all it’s about.
WaterGirl
@Adam L Silverman: I had no idea. Then why does it seem that Palestinians feel abandoned by the US? Or do I have that wrong?
Poopyman
@dollared: I’m gonna skip way ahead from Comment #10, so apologies if this has been addressed.
Intelligence/Military spending is a different color of money from infrastructure. This country has a large investment in highly skilled high tech workers that couldn’t and shouldn’t be shifted to infrastructure, which is fundamentally blue color. What we can (and imo should) do is redirect a large portion of that high tech work force into solving energy and global warming problems, as well as expanding our public research and development infrastructure, meaning publicly funding space exploration (I’m all for unmanned), energy development, and as you said, college, including funding graduate programs.
Sorry if I used up all the commas.
Adam L Silverman
@Prescott Cactus: To paraphrase: “this stuff is out there!” As in you can learn a lot about our official positions by going right to the source documents. Other countries do the same and you can find a bunch of the equivalents online these days as well.
BillinGlendaleCA
@? Major Major Major Major ?: FYWP has been weird today, I twice tried re-posting a link to a video that raven posted in an earlier thread and got sent to the bit bucket twice.
dollared
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: Links, please. It’s your own character you put on the line when you lie about and attack people you don’t know.
Emma
@debbie:So you’ve never had anyone you despised say to you “you did well” and you smile and say “thank you” and then say to a third person “hey guess who complimented me today?” You must work in the perfect environment.
I tend to judge people by their actions. Nothing in Hillary’s work, either in Congress or as Sec. State leads me to believe she shares anything with Kissinger except a former office.
BillinGlendaleCA
@redshirt: Somebody’s been watching “The Graduate”.
Davebo
@redshirt: Interesting.
I’m not sure how i feel about your ideas on reworking the entire electrical grid. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great idea and definitely a massive undertaking. Are you implying requiring a significant portion of it be done via domestic manufacturing? Are we going to remake our grid while excluding for instance any Siemens equipment manufactured outside the US? Again, not sure what to think of that.
As to biodegradable plastics, China is just as capable (actually much more capable) of filling that demand should it arise. Would you support not only legislating requirements for a shift to more biodegradable materials AND refuse to allow countries like China to fulfill that need?
Ramping Up
@Cacti:
Only one poll, out of sync with the others. BTW, lots of undecided! Crooked Hillary is a known entity and doesn’t have much room to grow.
rikyrah
I have issues with Hillary and foreign policy, but oh well…
BillinGlendaleCA
@debbie:
Links please.
Adam L Silverman
@debbie: I’m going to work that out as a compliment! The Israel stuff is a real problem. And its multifaceted. You’ve got the domestic political litmus test components, which have moved a lot to the religious right because of their millenarian understanding of the world and attempt to actually bring about the End Times. You’ve got that Turkey, our NATO ally in the region, under Erdogan is moving in a most undemocratic manner. You’ve got the conflation of Palestinian with Muslim in American popular consciousness. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
dollared
@Poopyman: I agree, but I dont’ think it’s either or. We should do both. But yes, those 250,000 computer science grads wasting our national resources in the DC area are a significant drag on GDP. They could be in the commercial sector making new products and services or doing basic research or clean tech. it’s a tragedy.
Emma
@Adam L Silverman: It would seem to me that “Former Secretaries of State” is a very exclusive club. I bet when they talk about it they look at their tenure there from the administrative standpoint, especially those at opposite ends of the political spectrum.
dollared
@Emma: Hillary was personally involved in undermining the democratically elected governments of three latin American nations. Just like Kissinger.
Adam L Silverman
@Baud: The real question isn’t should it be cut, but where, how, and when. That’s the real problem with the sequester for the defense budget: its a cleaver, not a scalpel. The Air Force, back before the sequester, had negotiated a very good deal/contract to replace a bunch of tanker planes. There was no doubt that we needed the acquisition. The sequester cancelled that contract, but not the requirement. So the Air Force had to go back and negotiate it all over again. They did not get as good a deal the second time. So the sequester actually cost us money in this case. And there are many, many other examples.
Fair Economist
@debbie:
You probably want somebody who want to resolve the Sunni-Shite conflict with diplomacy, work with our allies to stop funding and recruitment for ISIS, develop counters to the ideological appeal for ISIS, and avoid using torture or bombing civilians like this person
Oh wait, that’s Hillary!
Emma
@dollared: Spare me. From your comments here what you know about Latin America would fill a Hobbit’s thimble.
dollared
@Fair Economist: Wouldn’t that be great.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@dollared: oh, fuck you. You won’t even deny it cuz you know you said it. Kook!
I remember one time you were ranting about Reagan being liberal and I asked you “show us on the doll where Obama touched you” and you freaked out. LOL!
dollared
@Emma: That was a nonsubstantive response. Tell me about your expertise. How many Latin American countries have you visited? In how many have you conducted business?
Tilda Swinton's Bald Cap
@Ramping Up: Don’t forget that pancakes might help you become a nice person.
Baud
@Adam L Silverman: Agree. The sequester — like the shutdown — was a gigantic waste. My guess is that we won’t see a cut, but if we ever get a rational Congress, we might see a limit in the annual increase in defense spending. An actual cut may trigger a recession.
Omnes Omnibus
@Adam L Silverman:
This is the thing. Consider the source.
Adam L Silverman
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: Everything we do is intended to be with a Coalition and, if at all possible, by, with, and through the host country partner or partners. My impression is that the key lesson learned from the Bush 43 Administration’s efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan is that if the locals aren’t doing it for themselves, even if we’re supporting, then it isn’t going to work. This is, of course, for everything short of a proper interstate war.
As for the Israel remarks, I think that’s why they are ambiguously stated. They will mean different things to different listeners.
Adam L Silverman
@? Major Major Major Major ?: You weren’t in there. Try again from normal M4 and see what happens.
dollared
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch: Link or liar. For everything you asserted, asshole.
redshirt
@Davebo: Adding more and more alternative energy sources requires a different electrical grid which allows for long distance transmissions of energy, so for example, a massive solar farm in Nevada could supply power to Chicago. Our current grid – based on 100 year old tech – cannot do that. A new grid could.
But no, I’m not proposing any trade embargoes or anything of the like. Just that it would be such a massive project that it couldn’t help but spur domestic growth, even with foreign companies contributing.
As for plastics, yes, China could compete in that market too. But as a new medium, it favors innovators at first, and China is not normally an innovator economy. They could catch up eventually, but that might be a few more decades down the road.
Davebo
@dollared:
OK I’ll bite. What’s this all about again?
Major Major Major Major
@Adam L Silverman: Let’s take the ‘ol M^4 out for a spin then…
EDIT: Looks like I’m back. That was weird & frustrating, I really wanted to contribute to an earlier thread. Thanks!!
Fair Economist
@Adam L Silverman:
The really lethal part (in both the budgetary and sometimes literal sense) is when the contractors get involved in decisionmaking, to almost any extent. They have ferociously bad incentives and any non-routine decisions by contractors are at least highly suspect.
Emma
@dollared: Well considering (1) I’m Cuban-American (2) I have both personal and work contacts all over Latin America (3) am not only a fluent speaker of Spanish but a fluent reader of Portuguese and French and (4)regularly read Latin American news in the original language, I think I have the chops for one or two opinions.
Adam L Silverman
@Davebo: This is true. I first started as a contractor. And the business development unit of the company I worked for was terribly disruptive of the program. And they were charging through the nose too boot. You could have hired at least three, if not five of me on civil service lines for what they were charging for one of me. I’ve also been with companies that basically get out of the way unless there’s an H/R issue or they need to mediate between the government client and their personnel to ensure that their personnel aren’t caught in a professional conflict.
NonyNony
@Schlemazel Khan:
Considering that Right To Rise started with the persona of a Jeb! supporter, then went through almost literally every single Republican candidate and then hung his/her hat on the #NeverTrump strategy before finally deciding that the only way to keep trolling people around here was to drink the Trump kool aid.
Just keep in mind that R2R is here to irritate people. R2R pretends to be a paid troll because people around here hilariously think that a campaign would actually pay people to troll here for reasons that make no sense at all. And people keep playing right into the persona that s/he’s faking and taking it seriously instead of just ignoring it all or just responding with mockery (though there’s plenty of deserved mockery as well).
Adam L Silverman
@WaterGirl: Most don’t. As for the Palestinians, I think they feel abandoned by everyone. Sometimes even by their own leaders.
Here’s some basic info:
http://www.state.gov/s/ussc/
http://jerusalem.usconsulate.gov/about_the_embassy.html
dollared
@Adam L Silverman: Adam, Hillary has frequently bragged about her close relationship to Kissinger. There was a regular email flow at SecSTate where he mentored her. And they even went on a vacation together with their S/Os.
I’m not saying she agrees with him on anything or everything, but the relationship is quite real. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/hillary-clinton-kissinger-vacation-dominican-republic-de-la-renta
Tilda Swinton's Bald Cap
@dollared: You sir, need some of these !
debbie
@BillinGlendaleCA:
Tough to do links and quotes on my iPad, but see the third paragraph here. It’s her quoted statement:
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/12/hillary-clintons-ties-to-henry-kissinger-come-back-to-haunt-her/?_r=0
I’ve never heard her disavow him.
Omnes Omnibus
@dollared: Links?
Baud
@Emma: Damn, girl. Muy impresionante. What are you doing hanging around with us fools?
dollared
@Emma: Ah, so you’re Cuban. Got it. So yes, we might be on different sides of certain issues. Such as the rights of hereditary landowners who can trace their grants to the Spanish crown.
Luthe
@redshirt: You forget the evangelical connection to Israel. The Christianists support israel because it plays a vital role in their crazy end of the world prophecies. This gives Israel more clout on the Republican side than plain strategy would suggest.
Also, there is the Jewish vote and accompanying fundraising. AIPAC is losing influence now, but it’s still a stop on the candidate genuflection tour.
Davebo
@redshirt:
I’ve got to strongly disagree here. IP issues aside, US innovators will happily either license tech or outsource manufacturing to China. And there are many good reasons not all of which involve labor costs.
Foxconn can bring on 30,000 manufacturing workers in a matter of two weeks and drop as many weeks or months later as needed. That’s impossible in the US where manufacturers can’t add 3,000 workers in 3 months. The structural differences are immense and that’s not going to change any time soon, hopefully it never will.
Adam L Silverman
@rikyrah: And that is perfectly fine and I, at least, don’t think you have to change your opinion.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
Dopey Bern-outs, clinging to feeble, pathetic, paranoid conspiracy theories. Sad.
They’re the flip side of the teabaggers and their CTs about Benghazi and Vince Foster.
They would be sad, if they weren’t so unintentionally funny.
Betty Cracker
@dollared:
No, Mr. Trump. She’s an American.
BillinGlendaleCA
@Tilda Swinton’s Bald Cap: That’s a rather tall order, a short stack certainly won’t do.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch:
Krusty is coming… Krusty is coming… Krusty is coming…
burnspbesq
@dollared:
Uninformed and intolerant is no way to go through life.
Emma
@dollared:You are such a typical American left-winger. You assume all Cubans are conservative. More stupidly, you assume all Latin American countries have no self-will. Whatever happens in Latin America MUST be the result of something the United States did because, really, those people down there have no separate interests. EVERYTHING is about the United States.
(added): I come from a middle-class/farming class family. I wouldn’t know a hereditary anything if it bit me in the ass)
Omnes Omnibus
@dollared: Holy fuck.
Adam L Silverman
@Omnes Omnibus: Joy! As you know, so not directed at you, we have conflicting foreign policy drivers. We have these noble, lofty national ideals and values and then we have our practical interests. Occasionally they line up, most of the time they don’t. But I always love it when we actually do chose to act based on our national ideals and values and, when the predictable results occur – as in everything isn’t puppies, kittens, and ice cream sundaes – the most idealistic get butthurt. The real question should be: “what were the projections for how many people would have needlessly died if we and our coalition partners hadn’t intervened?” Until that is asked and answered, this stuff is all just an exercise in public flagellation.
Baud
@dollared:
I don’t know if going to the de la Renta’s house party every year along with a lot of other folks counts as vacationing together.
Adam L Silverman
@Major Major Major Major: Sorry I couldn’t be more help or glad I fixed whatever your problem was. Your choice!
Adam L Silverman
@Fair Economist: When I’ve been one, I always approach it as “I’ve raised my hand and taken the oath”, so I can give my best considered, unvarnished, but polite input. But once I give the input, its not my decision to make. Of course when I was on a term civil service appointment and had some decision making authority, my job was to primarily be an advisor, so…
Honus
@Cacti:Isreal has never in its history acted in favor of the United States when it would adversely affect its own best interests, and has on a number of occasions acted to the detriment of American interests.
redshirt
@Davebo: You’re probably right on that. Depends on who holds the IP.
Gin & Tonic
@Emma: Just like our old friend BiP with Ukraine. Everything is outside actors, and the Ukrainians have no agency. It’s tiresome.
debbie
@redshirt:
How’s about asking AIPAC if it’s all about oil?
@Adam L Silverman:
Totally a compliment. Sorry if it seemed otherwise.
Emma
@Baud: Having fun! It’s one of the reasons why I decided that management was not for me. I’m a tad mouthy and disinclined to curb myself at times.
And the language thing is not impressive. I have a trick brain that seems to assimilate them easily. I also can travel through Italy without a dictionary and am currently working on German.
Adam L Silverman
@debbie: I was teasing because it was intertwined with your discussion with redshirt. So no worries on my end. I got it the first time.
Baud
@Emma:
Sounds like you’re perfect for management.
Glad you are having fun. It’s the most important thing!
redshirt
@debbie: I don’t disagree with you on the surface, political reasons for the current positions. I’m talking about what’s the truth about the situation. It’s about resource security and it’s pretty much fundamental to any power, especially an empire.
dollared
@Omnes Omnibus: Here’s the Paraguay example, where the US State Department supported the right wing’s ouster despite requests from its neighbors to not recognize the new government: http://www.democracynow.org/2012/6/25/coup_in_paraguay_will_us_join. Here’s the Honduras example, where Clinton appears to have direct contact with the right wing leadership, and which has led to a failed state: http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/hillary-clinton-honduraslatinamericaforeignpolicy.html
And of course, Venezuela, where the US involvement has been nonstop.
Emma
@Gin & Tonic: Whenever Latin Americans who are well versed in the history and politics of their countries talk, that’s their favorite kvetch. Americans, including often well-meaning American governments, don’t get that IT’S NOT ALL ABOUT THEM.
debbie
@redshirt:
Again, iPad makes it tough to elaborate, but oil is only involved as part of sucking up to the Arab nations. The U.S. support of Israel is not at all about oil. The only reason the U.S. continues the charade of neutrality in the Middle East is for the oil. Two totally separate issues.
amygdala
Thank you so much for this. I don’t see events like this through the lens you do (nor do I know anyone who does), and it’s clarifying.
I tend to think of things like outbreaks and disasters. The many problems with international aid notwithstanding, alliances are important for mobilizing large-scale response to earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, and other catastrophes.
Adam L Silverman
@Emma: Its not just Latin Americans. We have a problem, its not new, but its run from the Cold War through to today, that no one else has any agency. Kennan addressed this in the Long Telegram/X Memo:
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/coldwar/documents/episode-1/kennan.htm
We get it for a few years. Some folks like me are brought in. Then we decide we can forget it again. And folks like me are let go. Then we get into trouble, realize we need to get it, rinse, and repeat.
redshirt
@debbie: We support Israel, Enemy of the Arabs, in order to extract concessions from the Arabs. Which have long been in place by now and must be continued as long as oil is required for the full functioning of the economy.
Adam L Silverman
@amygdala: You’re welcome. And you’ve highlighted (highlit?) a major issue. For instance, we are the only country left with the ability to do large scale strategic lift. So if there has to be a coordinated, international response for Disaster Management and Emergency Response, regardless of whether its natural or man made, we wind up not just involved, but coordinating. Because we have the assets and we’ve committed to maintaining those assets. Some of that is in our own self interests. Some of that is an attempt to put our ideals and values into practice. Mostly no one talks about it.
dollared
@Emma: No, it’s not. I did not say she *caused* these changes in government. Instead, the upper class controls the military and most of the economy, and most of the government machinery. So even if the leftists do come to power, they face severe disadvantages, such as the production strike that occurred in Venezuela after Chavez was elected. Or the semi-constitutional coups that toppled the left leaning governments in Brasil and Paraguay. Or an outright coup like in Honduras. But a liberal US Secretary of State should be reluctant to support or recognize these right wing extraconstitutional takeovers. Instead, Clinton appeared to support the Honduran coup, and quickly recognized the new government in Paraguay. Latin American countries have agency, yes. But the majority of the people in most Latin American countries do not have full agency, because of the near monopoly on power in the upper class. And American Secretaries of State have agency themselves, and make choices on how to respond.
dollared
@Baud:
Do you have special feelings for the people that you spend every Christmas with? I call them “my family.”
dollared
@Betty Cracker: Point taken.
Emma
@Adam L Silverman: Yeah. The thankless job of being an actual analyst in a set up that ignores your advice in favor a political expediency. I can see why you have several times stated that you give your best analysis and then it’s out of your hands. Only way to keep from punching walls ten hours a day.
Baud
@dollared: I don’t vacation on holidays. So not an analogous situation. If it’s just the Clintons, the Kissengers, and de la Renta, then they are probably close. If it’s a hundred big shots, then who knows?
Adam L Silverman
@Emma: It is what it is.
Bob In Portland
In several of the debates Clinton has said that she would create a “no-fly zone” over Syria. ISIS doesn’t have an air force, nor does al-Nusrah. Right now there are American planes, a few Syrian planes, and a lot of Russian planes. Is her “no-fly zone” just restricted to those political forces that don’t have an air force, or is she planning on taking out some Russian jets?
Clinton has also said that she stands for “liberating Crimea.” Can anyone here see any problems with that goal?
Mutual Assured Destruction was a means to prevent a nuclear exchange between the Soviet Union/Russia and the US. Now the US is constructing anti-ballistic missile sites in Poland and Romania. Does the creation of these sites make peace more or less likely in the case that the NATO military buildup in the Balkans spills into Russian territory?
I realize that most of the villagers have studiously avoided the existence fascists in the Kiev coup government and throughout its armed forces. Are you sure none of them will do anything to trigger a reaction from Russia?
Russia fears Clinton. They see her as a cold warrior who seems to find military action as a means for geopolitical gain.
Yes, if Congress rises up it can not fund a war. When was the last time they did that?
liberal
@burnspbesq: uninformed? LOL. Tell me, Burnsie, does passing a treaty like TPP require 2/3 of the Senate?
dollared
@Baud: Yeah. To me, the whole thing is weird. Can you imagine saying to yourself “If I could do just one thing for Christmas, it would be to spend it with Oscar de la Renta and the Kissingers?” For the millionth time, I’ll repeat that I’ll work for her and support her and vote for her. But I think some of her choices are genuinely weird.
Baud
@dollared: Yes, that’s weird to me too. The Clintons travel in much different circles than I do. That’s probably true of most big shot politicians.
redshirt
@Luthe: I didn’t forget it. In fact for folks like Palin I think it’s paramount. But again, I’m talking about what is the truth of the matter, not the politics of it. They can be entirely different matters. Middle East politics is a huge concern for the US since the widespread use of oil. Israel is a pretty big deal in Middle East politics. Ergo, oversized influence of Israeli policy. And oh yeah, they are the Israeli Republicans and spun by Fox News as such and thus the passionate defense by US Republicans.
liberal
@Bob In Portland: I’ll gladly vote for HRC over any available Republican, but am fearful of her getting us involved with an escalating conflict with Russia over issues we frankly have no national stake in. Of course, the ignorant bloodthirsty warmongers who comment here can’t understand that.
dollared
@Davebo: The NSA. CIA. The Pentagon. Massive IT projects all over the Government that could likely be rationalized and streamlined. We’re talking hundreds of thousands of IT professionals that are snooping or analyzing, in a technology stream that can’t really be commercialized and adapted to other uses. IQ gone to waste.
Tilda Swinton's Bald Cap
@liberal: Don’t forget these.
Emma
@dollared: The upper crust has controlled Latin America since the wars of independence. It’s partly a matter of economics and also of Latin Americans’ fatal attraction to the caudillos — the strong man who will impose the solutions (and that disease runs to the left as well as the right). But it’s also a matter of sheer inter-country conflict. Find a good title on Latin American boundary disputes; it’ll teach you something about lingering hatred and the willingness to sink your neighbor. When we in the United States talk about Latin America as a monolith we have already failed in the analysis.
The United States actually had more power before. The days of Mamita Yunai are gone. The Chinese were aggressively moving into Latin America and they have even less interest in lasting democracies than the United States has. Whether that will last considering the Chinese’s own problems remains to be seen. It’s always fluid and messy, and facile accusations of “It’s always our fault” don’t add a bit.
(added) One thing the US could constructively do it make it hard on US companies to hopscotch from country to country looking for lowest protuction expenses. Considering the current constitution of our Congress…. feh.
Adam L Silverman
@Bob In Portland: @liberal: There are two issues here, aside from Bob’s parroting of the official Russian party line. 1) What does she mean by liberate the Crimea? If she means a proper diplomatic initiative that removes external pressures – both ours and Russia’s – so that the Crimeans can themselves determine whether they want to be part of Russia, part of Ukraine, independent, then that’s a good thing. No one is going to war over Crimea. I know that may sound cruel or indifferent, but its true. It was also what Putin was counting on and why he did what he did and how he did it. 2) While it is true that neither IS or Nusra Front have an air force, the issue of a no fly zone is to what effect? Right now there are two distinct air campaigns going on over/in Syria. The first is the Coalition air campaign to degrade and reduce IS. The second is the Russian one in support of the Assad government that focuses on degrading the anti-Assad government rebel forces. The purpose of a no fly zone would be to prevent the latter campaign from causing massive collateral damage to Syrian civilians, as well as to degrade the rebel forces we’re trying to leverage against IS. Its an interesting statement, but here too no one is going to war over Russian air strikes on behalf of Assad. And here too this is why Putin is doing what he’s doing. Russia isn’t scared that the US, NATO, and their Coalition partners will start a war with them, they are counting on them to continue not doing so. This aids Putin’s strategic goals of making the NATO Alliance look as if it is scared to confront Russia and that it is too weak and ineffectual to do so.
Emma
@Baud: You know, it’s possible that since they didn’t know who the other guests were until they got there. De la Renta was known for house parties in the old English style– bring together “interesting people” from different circles — all wealthy circles, of course. Think twenties and thirties British country house mysteries. The only faux pas is to invite people who are feuding. That’s how it turns out to be the carving knife in the library.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@dollared: Hmm…
Hmmm^2
There’s a lot more going on with computers and IT than just what the spooks are doing.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
NotMax
@Emma
So old can remember back to when they were waggishly called the Long Playing Countries: 33-1/3 revolutions per minute.
Gin & Tonic
@Adam L Silverman: Precisely correct.
Baud
@Emma: Maybe the first year. But the article says they go regularly every year. But I agree about the house party thing. It doesn’t strike me as a small group gathering.
Adam L Silverman
@Gin & Tonic: Thank you, not that I expect providing that answer is going to spare us.
Davebo
@dollared:
I think you’ve never worked with federal IT systems. It’s a nightmare.
One example I’m familiar with. In 2014 the Executive Office of Immigration Review suffered a major server meltdown that literally shut down over 220 immigration judges dockets nationwide for six weeks. Six freaking weeks!
Think about that. For a month and a half a court system that already had dockets extending 4 years into the future was out of commission. That’s over 220 judges, their 5 or 6 legal and admin clerks, interpreters, bailiffs and other security personnel etc. sitting on their hands for six weeks while people who had already waited 4 years for a hearing see their cases reset often for another four years into the future during which time they are still allowed to legally work in the US while waiting. (Most obviously didn’t complain).
This kind of situation isn’t unique.
seaboogie
@Tilda Swinton’s Bald Cap: You and your griddle are invited to my place on the Sunday morning of your choosing ?
Emma
@Baud: Well, Mr. de la Renta was Mrs. Clinton’s designer of choice, as well as Mrs. Kissinger’s. But yeah. Ugh.
Emma
@Betty Cracker: Missed this before. Thank you.
Elie
Late (very late) to the thread but wanted to thank Adam for the in-depth, serious analysis. Now I have to go back up and read everything and everyone’s comments. Thanks!
Elie
@The Sheriff’s A Ni-:
I ran into a “friend” who is an avid Bernie supporter today. She smiled when she said that the LOCAL Democrats were going to have to work to make the Bernie supporters happy. Get THAT!? Bernie and his minions continue to be in some sort of vortex about their massive power… and this after the recent primary results which showed that Bernie actually LOST the State! Wow — these folks might have some real impact locally on our limping along Democrats?!
What a bunch of shit heads!
Bob In Portland
@Adam L Silverman: I’d suggest that you read other than American press regarding collateral damage in Syria. I would post links but I seem to be having trouble posting links at this site.
So, essentially, H. Clinton will impose a no-fly zone in Syria allowing everyone now flying to continue flying? Not much of a no-fly zone.
You did not address the US’s undermining Mutual Assured Discussion.
So aside from me repeating “Putin’s” talking points you say that Hillary’s imposition of a no-fly zone will essentially be nothing. You say that her talk about liberating Crimea is just talk (although the US is trying to stir up the Muslim population in Crimea like they’ve done in other regions), and that the Russians apparently aren’t concerned about the anti-ballistic missiles in Poland and Romania. Then what’s the point?
But I’m glad you’re not concerned with Russia’s concerns.
J R in WV
deleted
Sarah, Proud and Tall
@Omnes Omnibus:
@Tilda Swinton’s Bald Cap:
I don’t think there’s enough pancakes in the world for that one…
Linnaeus
We might want to start by asking more questions about what we mean by “stability”, “order”, etc. and whose interests are served by those definitions.
Adam L Silverman
@Bob In Portland: I read very little of the American press, as I’ve mentioned here many times. And you need to go back and reread what I said regarding the no fly zones. Its clear you didn’t read very carefully.
Adam L Silverman
@Linnaeus: Those are also very good questions to ask.
J R in WV
@liberal:
Actually, approval of the TPP only takes a majority of the Senate, because of a previously passed bill that set up that approval process. So, no, it won’t take 66 votes to pass the TPP, just 50 + Biden…
Sorry.
Gin & Tonic
@Bob In Portland: The “Muslim population of Crimea” willingly and overwhelmingly supports the government of Ukraine. 1944 was not long ago at all for the Tatars.
Linnaeus
@Adam L Silverman:
Thanks. Let me add that it’s completely fair to ask what the alternative to a given situation would look like and if that alternative has any potential to be better. It’s just that the current state of things (in any context) is also founded upon assumptions that deserve some scrutiny from time to time.
Aleta
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: And many of the researchers who used to do weapons modeling have switched over to climate modeling, since that’s where the grant money is now. They have a lot more computing power at their disposal than the earlier climate modelers at the universities (in the US that is) which keeps most of the grants flowing their way.
Bob In Portland
@Gin & Tonic: Well, it’s true that the Nazis in WWII used the Tatar population to carry on killing of Slavs prior to 1944 and when the Russians came back in power there was payback.
I actually haven’t seen any surveys suggesting that any portion of Crimea or any population subset wants to go back to Ukraine since the coup in 2014. And Russia would never give it up anyway, which was a point of what Adam and I were talking about. He believes that the US would never attack Russia over Crimea. So I guess Hillary’s liberation talk about Crimea is worth about as much as her talk about a no-fly zone in Syria.
Gin & Tonic
@Bob In Portland: Nobody, except perhaps you, believes the US will go to war over Crimea. The Tatars know it, the Ukrainians know it and Putin knows it.
Bob In Portland
@Adam L Silverman:
Well, if the US allows Russia to attack and degrade IS how does it prevent Russia from attacking other rebel groups; it’s unclear to me what they can do about collateral damage without force, and considering the US’s record in Afghanistan on collateral damage it wouldn’t be over some moral outrage. It’s either the US allows the Russians to do what they do or they try to stop them. The irony here is that Assad invited the Russians. The US really has no legal right to be doing anything in Syria.
But aside from all that, to reiterate, if the the US tries to impose a no-fly zone over Syria, it is either with or against Russia. If it’s with Russia, then you are saying that the no-fly zone is bluster for domestic consumption. If it’s against Russia, its the start of a war with Russia.
Adam L Silverman
@Linnaeus: Without a doubt.
Omnes Omnibus
@Bob In Portland: Get a grip.
Adam L Silverman
@Bob In Portland: Very few of Russia’s air strikes are against IS, almost all of them are against the rebel groups opposing Assad.
Bob In Portland
@Gin & Tonic: So you agree with Adam that Hillary’s tough talk is another lie?
Bob In Portland
@Adam L Silverman: According to?
KS in MA
@Fair Economist: Co-sign. Reducing our overpriced dependence on Halliburton, the company formerly known as Blackwater, et al., would be a really good thing. I guess it would have to be done under the radar, but that would be fine.
redshirt
When drones/robotics increase enough it will be possible to make the entire world a no fly zone without X*’s approval.
*USA
Adam L Silverman
@Bob In Portland: al Jazeera:
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2016/1/9/only-a-third-of-russian-air-strikes-in-syria-target-isil-us-official-says.html
The Independent of Britain:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/amnesty-report-russia-directly-targets-civilians-in-syria-killing-at-least-200-in-possible-war-a6783271.html
The Guardian, also of Britain:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/05/russian-claims-syria-airstrikes-inaccurate-report
Omnes Omnibus
@Adam L Silverman: Come on, they’ve been infiltrated by the Gehlen Org. Pfft.
Bob In Portland
@KS in MA: Halliburton isn’t another name for Blackwater, unless they merged in the last few years. Halliburton at one point was Brown & Root and had its fingers in a lot of US construction in Vietnam during that war. At least Brown & Root was one of the mergees. Blackwater is a private mercenary company that keeps changing its name. I’m not sure what its name is now.
Maybe they merged. They could be part of Comcast.
Adam L Silverman
@Omnes Omnibus: I haven’t seen a reference to the Gehlen Org in years. Well done, well done indeed.
Adam L Silverman
@Bob In Portland: No, he has a new company. Its fronting for a PRC controlled firm and their stream of money.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/24/erik-prince-former-blackwater-chief-under-investig/
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/24/blackwater-founder-erik-prince-under-federal-investigation/
Omnes Omnibus
@Adam L Silverman: It is one of Bob’s hobbyhorses.
Gin & Tonic
@Adam L Silverman: It’s a staple with Bob.
Omnes Omnibus
@Bob In Portland: Figure out how punctuation works.
redshirt
@Gin & Tonic: Always a net negative.
Adam L Silverman
@Omnes Omnibus: @Gin & Tonic: Oy gevalt.
Bob In Portland
@Adam L Silverman: Who owns al Jazeera? I don’t know about the Independent but the Guardian has been fingered as a major cog in the Mighty Wurlitzer; but we will merely sink into us questioning each other over which source to believe.
You believe in our media and presume anything pro-Russian must be propaganda. That’s your default setting. Mine? It’s not so much that I trust the pro-Russian sources more, it’s that I trust most western sources less. Whatever the lessons you learned, I learned something different.
Our government lies to us. Over and over. The Gulf of Tonkin was a lie that killed millions. Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That lie killed millions. Other lies killed other amounts.
redshirt
@Bob In Portland: Bob did you know someone is dying right now?
Omnes Omnibus
@Adam L Silverman: I knew of it because I am a spy novel fan and because I wrote some papers on espionage for international politics classes. Philby, et al. were fascinating to me at a certain point. I more or less let it disappear from my mind until BiP went there.
Bob In Portland
@Omnes Omnibus: I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Gin & Tonic
@Bob In Portland: Your #198.
Omnes Omnibus
@Bob In Portland: If you notice the punctuation in the you were complain about you will notice that Halliburton and Blackwater are mentioned in a list separated by commas that indicates that they are companies with whom the government contracts. There was no suggestion that they are the same.
Bob In Portland
@Gin & Tonic: The comma after Blackwater?
Bob In Portland
@Omnes Omnibus: Okay, on me. But it’s led us to finding out where the guy who used to own Blackwater is up to these days.
KS in MA
@Omnes Omnibus: LOL! Commas can be so ambiguous, eh? I shoulda said “(1)Halliburton, (2) the company formerly known as Blackwater, (3) et al.”
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Aleta: Yup.
There’s Obama’s Executive Order from last July, also too.
It’s fine to say that the US government should stop sucking up all the IT talent to feed the snooping machine at the NSA (and they certainly are a big player), but they invest in much more than that. And those investments wouldn’t be done otherwise.
Cheers,
Scott.
Miss Bianca
Dang, Adam. Once again it looks like I have a whole day of chasing down your links just to keep up. And here I was preening myself that I’d actually watched the speech.
*hangs head*
Bob In Portland
Apparently, it’s a tradition.
dollared
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: I’m aware of a lot of these developments. I work in an organization that sells IT to large customers, including the feds. There are many, many good things being done. There are a lot of wasted things. I’m mainly thinking about the spooks and defense. Given the shortage of top level programmers, there is a large opportunity cost to those programs.
El Caganer
@Emma: It’s a bit closer relationship than that. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/hillary-clinton-kissinger-vacation-dominican-republic-de-la-renta
El Caganer
@Adam L Silverman: I thought his goal was to maintain Russian naval facilities at Sevastopol and Tartus. Will confess that I’m no expert on Russia.