Author Topic: The Trump Presidency  (Read 399073 times)

Offline Geordie

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #240 on: April 14, 2017, 11:00:49 PM »
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-14/nothing-unpredictable-about-dangerous-north-korea/8444778

Here's an interesting assessment of North Korea, which pretty much tallies with comments I've made in the past over at UM about the current leadership of that delightful country.

Quote
...the Kim regime is dangerous, brutal and petulant but if anything, predictable.

= = = =

Incidentally, on the issue of whether you can negotiate with terrorists, another example I read about was a method used by the US military occupying forces in Iraq to defuse the threat of Al Qaeda: they set up a Sunni self-defence militia and invited any local Sunnis to join, no questions asked.

They were paid a small allowance - small in Western terms, but enough money that members of the militia didn't need to work. The result was that large numbers of Al Qaeda members deserted that organisation to join the militia, patrolling their communities alongside American troops they'd been shooting at only weeks before. The number of AQ attacks went down, the militia were respected by their community, and the cost in terms of salaries was far smaller than the cost of sending hundreds of resented American soldiers in to patrol the communities.

Of course, it raises a bunch of questions: What did the American soldiers think of walking the streets with men who'd probably been responsible for the deaths of their own comrades? Was it moral or ethical to take such a mercenary stand in relation to people who'd previously sworn their opposition to the USA?

But this is the problem you get when you treat a group or a country as some sort of eternal enemy and pre-emptively rule out any possibility of negotiation. For one thing, when circumstances dictate that you do have to negotiate with them then you look like a hypocrite (think of the various Western hostages in Lebanon back in the 1980s whose eventual liberation relied on American negotiations with their supposed arch-enemy Iran). For another thing becoming too doctrinaire or belligerent when speaking about a current enemy makes it that much harder to back down later if you need to ask for their assistance. Consider the way Admiral Bill Halsey spoke during World War Two about Japanese people in general, and consider that if his attitude had permeated the American occupation forces in the years after the end of the war, it would have been that much harder to use Japan as a staging post for American and allied forces in South Korea.

That's why, in terms of foreign relations, I think it's better to be a guarded pragmatist - you never know when today's enemy might be a useful ally.

So in that regard (with both North Korea and Syria) I'm fairly positive about Rex Tillerson as Trump's Secretary of State.

Could these examples, and what has taken place recently, be Realpolitik?

(Realpolitik is politics or diplomacy based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral and ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. It is often simply referred to as pragmatism in politics, e.g. "pursuing pragmatic policies". The term Realpolitik is sometimes used pejoratively to imply politics that are coercive, amoral, or Machiavellian.)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

Offline Peter B

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #241 on: April 15, 2017, 01:36:34 AM »
Yes, that term would fit too.

And that circles back around to topics we covered a page or two ago, about the expenditure of money on various domestic programs...

In the years after World War Two the USA spent large amounts of money rebuilding Western European countries devastated by the war - the Marshall Plan.

Now obviously, there was a propaganda aspect to the plan, in presenting the USA as a generous donor country, compared with those nasty Communists in the Soviet Union.

But there was a pragmatic angle to it too. By rebuilding the economies of those countries they were able to start producing stuff to sell overseas, which gave them the money to buy stuff from the USA. In other words, the money the USA spent rebuilding the European economies was amply repaid to the USA. The Marshall Plan kickstarted something like 25 years of economic growth after World War Two.

So it frustrates me when people want to cut a program (any program) which costs money when those programs are easily demonstrated to save a lot more money down the track.

For example, a study pointed out the benefits of simply placing homeless people in a house - it would be cheaper in the long run for the relevant government to pay the rent than to have to pay the law enforcement and health costs of that homeless person staying on the street.

The problem is, of course, for many people (on both sides of politics) ideological purity is more important than results or costs.

Offline Obviousman

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 735
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #242 on: April 15, 2017, 05:13:06 AM »
Incidentally, on the issue of whether you can negotiate with terrorists, another example I read about was a method used by the US military occupying forces in Iraq to defuse the threat of Al Qaeda: they set up a Sunni self-defence militia and invited any local Sunnis to join, no questions asked.

They were paid a small allowance - small in Western terms, but enough money that members of the militia didn't need to work. The result was that large numbers of Al Qaeda members deserted that organisation to join the militia, patrolling their communities alongside American troops they'd been shooting at only weeks before. The number of AQ attacks went down, the militia were respected by their community, and the cost in terms of salaries was far smaller than the cost of sending hundreds of resented American soldiers in to patrol the communities.

That reminds me of the book 'Once A Warrior King' by "David Donovan", about a soldier's experiences in Vietnam.

https://www.amazon.com/Once-Warrior-King-Memories-Paperbacks/dp/0753819562

 I don't have any experience in that area, but it sounds like a good plan.

Offline Peter B

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #243 on: April 15, 2017, 06:52:35 AM »
Another demonstration of Realpolitik comes from examining the claims of those who talk about a Muslim-Christian culture war. Such a culture war exists only to the extent that it serves the agenda of those who claim the culture war's existence.

Consider the Coalition from the First Gulf War - USA, UK, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, etc etc. Plenty of Muslim countries which saw their interests better served by aligning themselves with the Crusaders than with their fellow Muslims.

During World War One, Germany and Austria-Hungary had no problems aligning themselves with Ottoman Turkey, and religious figures in Turkey had no problems calling down a fatwa on some Christians - that is, the UK, Russia and France.

And about 60 years earlier those same Brits and Frogs had been Ottoman allies in the fight against Russia - because once again geopolitics was far more important than religion.

In fact throughout history it's easy to find examples where Christians and Muslims found geopolitics trumped religion, such as in the 16th century when France was surrounded by the politically and religiously aligned Spanish and German Empires, so the King of France made an alliance with Suleiman the Magnificent of Turkey.

But the best examples come from the Crusades. Anyone who thinks the Crusades were solely about Christians fighting Muslims knows nothing about the Crusades.

= = = =

1. The origin of the Crusades lay in a religious dispute, but not one involving Christians. In the early 11th century the Seljuk Turks, then located in Central Asia, converted to Sunni Islam, and then vowed to unite the whole Islamic world for the (then powerless) Caliph in Baghdad. This meant conquering the Shia Fatimids of Egypt and their heretic Caliph in Cairo. On the way to Egypt some loosely allied Turkoman tribes decided on a bit of freelance raiding of the Byzantine Empire. The Emperor responded and his army was soundly defeated. The Turkish tribes occupied most of Asia Minor (that is, what's now Asian Turkey). Twenty years later another Byzantine Emperor, Alexius, asked for assistance from Western European leaders. He was looking for mercenaries. What he got was the First Crusade.

2. The Pope's model for organising the Crusade was the Norman invasion of England 30 years earlier, to the extent of formally blessing the standards of the commanders. Yes, back in 1066 the Pope at the time had formally endorsed Duke William's invasion because at the time the English church was considered to be heretical. Thus William's invasion had, among other objectives, the very religious objective of rescuing the English church from heresy. Much the same formulation was followed for the First Crusade.

3. The first target of the Crusaders was the city of Nicaea. However the Crusaders had little knowledge of siege warfare and Nicaea had high stone walls. Emperor Alexius soon turned up with a siege train, and the Byzantine siege engines knocked down a section of wall. The Crusaders informed Alexius they were going to attack the city the next morning, but the next morning they were astonished to discover Byzantine flags flying from the city's towers. Overnight Alexius had convinced the Turkish garrison to surrender and leave the city. The Crusaders were furious that Alexius had effectively stolen the city from under their noses, firstly because it now meant they wouldn't be able to sack the city, and secondly because the Turks were allowed to live and might fight them again in the future. But Nicaea's population was still overwhelmingly Greek and Christian and Alexius wanted the city back intact. He paid off the Crusaders with a large pile of gold - still cheaper than rebuilding a destroyed city.

4. During the march to Antioch, the Crusaders received an embassy from some Muslims who were seeking an alliance. Given that they saw their job as killing Muslims, the Crusaders dismissed the embassy. It turned out the embassy was from the Fatimids, who were just about holding the Seljuks at bay on the border of Egypt, and who saw the Crusaders as a useful ally in what they (the Fatimids) thought was a war against a common enemy.

5. After capturing Antioch (after a siege lasting more than a year), the Crusaders had to turn around and face a large Turkish army, consisting mostly of cavalry. But the Crusaders had lost so many horses to starvation that their army was now mostly infantry. Yet despite being hungry, outnumbered and mostly on foot, the Crusaders were victorious. No wonder the victory was seen as a miracle. But what the Crusaders didn't realise was that the Turkish tribal leaders saw their own commander as more of a threat to their independence than this Christian army and abandoned him, leaving him to fight the battle with only his own retinue. No surprise then that he was defeated.

6. The Crusaders, now full of religious fervour from their 'miraculous' victory, marched on to Jerusalem, which they captured. What they didn't realise was that the garrison was actually Fatimid, not Turkish. The Crusaders were so unaware of Muslim politics that in marching from Antioch to Jerusalem they didn't notice they'd crossed the front line of a completely separate religious war.

7. The First Crusade created a power vacuum in the Middle East. The Crusader princes immediately fell to arguing and fighting among themselves, and all sides soon realised the benefits to be gained by forming alliances with local Muslim tribal leaders, who were just as fractured among themselves as the Crusaders were. Within 10 years of the Crusader capture of Jerusalem we have records of battles in which both armies consisted of Crusaders and Muslims.

Now in the end the Crusaders lost their last cities to a united Muslim state (the Mamluk Sultanate), but this Muslim unity was the exception rather than the rule. The main reason the Crusader states lasted nearly two centuries was because for most of that time the Muslims of the region were divided among themselves, and saw the Crusaders as useful allies rather than a religious enemy.

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #244 on: April 15, 2017, 10:48:52 AM »
So it frustrates me when people want to cut a program (any program) which costs money when those programs are easily demonstrated to save a lot more money down the track.

For years, I got my birth control through a program from the state of Washington.  A friend got a vasectomy through the program!  I forget how much the program was estimated to save the state every year, but it was a lot.  And, yes, certain lawmakers were routinely trying to end the program.

Quote
For example, a study pointed out the benefits of simply placing homeless people in a house - it would be cheaper in the long run for the relevant government to pay the rent than to have to pay the law enforcement and health costs of that homeless person staying on the street.

A friend or possibly relative of a friend insists that can't be true, because how much can homeless people cost?
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline Glom

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1102
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #245 on: April 15, 2017, 02:51:31 PM »
If you need more shame, there's this.

The Flower & Garden Festival at Epcot has a number of lovely outdoor kitchens. The Bauernmarkt in the Germany pavilion in World Showcase offers currywurst.

However, when they say currywurst with chips, it came with crisps, not fries. I have photographic evidence of authentic Berliner currywurst that shows the research had a small gap in it.

Offline Peter B

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #246 on: April 15, 2017, 06:41:49 PM »
Quote
For example, a study pointed out the benefits of simply placing homeless people in a house - it would be cheaper in the long run for the relevant government to pay the rent than to have to pay the law enforcement and health costs of that homeless person staying on the street.

A friend or possibly relative of a friend insists that can't be true, because how much can homeless people cost?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-16/cheaper-to-provide-homes-for-homeless-rather-sleep-rough/8354284

Here's the article. As it happens, it was talking about last-resort housing, not ordinary housing. So there's some difference there. But the article summarises the costs:

Quote
Getting people off the streets was calculated to have the following economic benefits per person:
Type of cost   Savings per year, per bed
Health cost:   $8,429
Reduced crime:    $6,182
Individual costs:   $6,500
Improved human capital:   $4,236
Other:   $268
Total:   $25,615

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #247 on: April 16, 2017, 09:30:34 AM »
Yeah, we presented him with facts.  He couldn't seem to grasp them.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #248 on: April 16, 2017, 05:23:17 PM »
Another demonstration of Realpolitik comes from examining the claims of those who talk about a Muslim-Christian culture war. Such a culture war exists only to the extent that it serves the agenda of those who claim the culture war's existence.

Consider the Coalition from the First Gulf War - USA, UK, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, etc etc. Plenty of Muslim countries which saw their interests better served by aligning themselves with the Crusaders than with their fellow Muslims.

During World War One, Germany and Austria-Hungary had no problems aligning themselves with Ottoman Turkey, and religious figures in Turkey had no problems calling down a fatwa on some Christians - that is, the UK, Russia and France.

And about 60 years earlier those same Brits and Frogs had been Ottoman allies in the fight against Russia - because once again geopolitics was far more important than religion.

In fact throughout history it's easy to find examples where Christians and Muslims found geopolitics trumped religion, such as in the 16th century when France was surrounded by the politically and religiously aligned Spanish and German Empires, so the King of France made an alliance with Suleiman the Magnificent of Turkey.

This concept makes great comedy

If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline Peter B

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #249 on: April 17, 2017, 01:33:40 AM »
Great comedy (I used to love watching Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister) but there's truth in it too.

Over that 500 year period that Sir Humphrey talks about, England's/Britain's strategic security has been based on keeping Europe divided. Only a united Europe has the strength to invade Britain, so British foreign policy involves opposing any state on the road to controlling/uniting Europe. Hence: backing the Dutch against Spain in the late 16th century; backing the alliance against Louis XIV in the late 17th century *; backing various coalitions against Napoleon in the early 19th century; backing the Entente against Germany in WW1; opposing Germany in WW2; and backing NATO against the USSR.

* One of the reasons for Parliament overthrowing James II in 1688 was his desire to ally with France, which was severely against England's strategic interests.

Offline Peter B

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #250 on: April 17, 2017, 01:46:51 AM »
Meanwhile, in South Korea...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-17/pence-north-korea/8447606

Quote
Pointing to the quarter-century since North Korea first obtained nuclear weapons, the Vice President said a period of patience followed.

"But the era of strategic patience is over," he warned.

I wonder what the South Korean government thinks about that. I suspect they'd be keen to try to stretch things out as long as they can, given the number of artillery pieces pointing at Seoul.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #251 on: April 17, 2017, 06:53:41 PM »
For example, a study pointed out the benefits of simply placing homeless people in a house - it would be cheaper in the long run for the relevant government to pay the rent than to have to pay the law enforcement and health costs of that homeless person staying on the street.

That study took place (at least partly) in my city.  Your analysis is spot-on.  Not only did we save money by simply providing subsidized housing for the homeless, but (according to my friend who's a county prosecutor) so much of the crime associated with homelessness such as drug dealing was reduced.  That resulted in a safer city and lower costs of public law enforcement and court proceedings.  The situation is objectively improved across the board when homelessness isn't made a law-enforcement problem.  But alas you're correct:  the notion of "coddling" the homeless was ultimately politically unsustainable.

As it regards arts programs, I like to note that we observe cultures with subsistence economies still allocating their scarce resources to their "arts" programs such as traditional celebrations, dance, visual art, etc.  These forms of expression are deeply rooted in who we are as a species.  Of course there's the famous (and perhaps apocryphal) Churchill quote.  When it was suggested that Britain forego its arts in favor of the war effort, Churchill responded:  "Then what are we fighting for?"
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #252 on: April 18, 2017, 02:05:27 AM »
Next......tactical patience.

Offline Obviousman

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 735
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #253 on: April 18, 2017, 03:35:32 AM »
I wonder if this is what's been needed? Okay, try diplomacy and patience but at a certain point you have to take some type of action. Back about 10 or so years ago, the DPRK was thought to have only one or two "deliverable" nuclear weapons... and that was short range with their largest delivery vehicles. That's now up to 15 or so and their bombs are getting smaller... and their launch vehicles are getting a longer range with bigger payloads.

If left unchecked, at a certain point they are going to pose a serious threat to numerous nations.

Perhaps now is the time to put the brakes on, take away their dangerous toys. The solution would ideally involve China but how long do you wait? One moment you have a yappy puppy... the next, you have a fully grown savage dog.

Offline Peter B

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
Re: The Trump Presidency
« Reply #254 on: April 18, 2017, 04:28:13 AM »
I wonder if this is what's been needed? Okay, try diplomacy and patience but at a certain point you have to take some type of action. Back about 10 or so years ago, the DPRK was thought to have only one or two "deliverable" nuclear weapons... and that was short range with their largest delivery vehicles. That's now up to 15 or so and their bombs are getting smaller... and their launch vehicles are getting a longer range with bigger payloads.

If left unchecked, at a certain point they are going to pose a serious threat to numerous nations.

Perhaps now is the time to put the brakes on, take away their dangerous toys. The solution would ideally involve China but how long do you wait? One moment you have a yappy puppy... the next, you have a fully grown savage dog.

Possibly...

The thing is, though, the ultimate objective of the Kim regime is survival. Both Kim and his generals would be well aware that going to war would result in at least the loss of their cushy lifestyle and at worst death. Why would they do anything to risk that?

My understanding of the strategic purpose of North Korea's nuclear weapons is to discourage anyone from attacking them for fear of getting a nuclear reprisal. At the moment that reprisal would be against South Korea or Japan, which might not be enough to discourage the USA. But consider, they've had the ability to rain nuclear destruction down on those two countries for several years and haven't done so - they don't because they know if they do it means the end of their cushy lifestyle...etc etc.

So I think we should see their nuclear arsenal as defensive or retaliatory rather than offensive. And that's what makes America's current threats so dangerous - it brings about exactly the circumstances in which the North Koreans would feel the need to use their weapons.

I think I'd prefer the USA just quietly pay a billion dollars a year into a Swiss bank account for Kim's personal use (that is, for distribution among the generals to keep them on-side *). In the long run it'd be cheaper than war.

* And if the Americans wanted to be vindictive, drop a hint to the generals that Kim was getting two billion a year and have them all wonder how Kim was spreading it around.