March 26, 2016

The NYT begins to treat Donald Trump with some respect.

That's my perception, reading "In Donald Trump’s Worldview, America Comes First, and Everybody Else Pays," by David E. Sanger and Maggie Haberman. This is not 100% respectful, of course, but I was struck by the seriousness of the presentation:
In Mr. Trump’s worldview, the United States has become a diluted power, and the main mechanism by which he would re-establish its central role in the world is economic bargaining. He approached almost every current international conflict through the prism of a negotiation, even when he was imprecise about the strategic goals he sought....

Mr. Trump explained his thoughts in concrete and easily digestible terms, but they appeared to reflect little consideration for potential consequences....
I thought a lot about "appeared to reflect little consideration for potential consequences." It could be that Trump is alarmingly uninterested in the details and the downsides of risks. But it could be that Trump, keyed into the task of running for office, is expressing himself aptly in the style that works — "concrete and easily digestible terms" — and simply withholding the elaboration of the problems and the risks. Perhaps he focuses on the task at hand. Right now it's getting enough Americans to vote for him, and if he's President he'll correspondingly lock into that task and do it as well as anyone.

Here's one of the most up-voted comments over there: "We can quibble about details, but this approach is long overdue. Why even have a country if its citizens are not the primary concern of those in power?" And: "Have to agree that it's time to play hardball with Saudi Arabia." And:
Very interesting.

His macho attitude, and rudeness aside, Mr. Trump raises some very good points.

I agree that nations we deploy troops and military equipment to, either as a deterrent, or for immediate defense, anywhere on the planet, should pay a fair price for that service, a fair price being exactly what the operation costs us. And lest anyone think otherwise, those costs are borne by we, the American taxpayer.

Insofar as Saudi Arabia, and other middle eastern nations wherein we have a presence are concerned, their oil wealth should be given us "free", including shipping costs, and refining, if they do not want to pay in cash.

He should go even further; nations that permit our corporations to relocate there, benefiting their economy's, and destroying ours, should agree to payment of a type of tariff that would be used to create jobs stateside for those who have lost their jobs due to corporations moving overseas, or they should agree to subsidies payable to out of work Americans.

In fact there are a whole slew of options available that would very quickly dissuade corporations relocating overseas.

Its way past time for government to realize that "we the very angry people", are fed up with this one sided representation, and we will end it. The historic inequality we are experiencing is a direct result of the Plutocratic Oligarchy, taking everything, leaving breadcrumbs for the masses, believing they can continue to get away with it.

The elites must be trembling.
ADDED: The NYT reprinted the whole transcript: here

94 comments:

AprilApple said...

They see the writing on the wall. Hillary will easily beat Trump. Why not be nice? NYT only nasty to anyone who poses a threat to their world order.

bgates said...

Insofar as Saudi Arabia, and other middle eastern nations wherein we have a presence are concerned, their oil wealth should be given us "free", including shipping costs, and refining, if they do not want to pay in cash.

Once upon a time, when George W Bush was carrying out the 21st century version of Woodrow Wilson's foreign policy, Democrats based their insistence that Bush was Hitler reincarnate on the notion that he secretly held the belief spelled out above. Today, that belief is a NYT Editor's Pick, and has been recommended by 189 readers.

Terry said...

Blogger AprilApple said...
They see the writing on the wall. Hillary will easily beat Trump. Why not be nice? NYT only nasty to anyone who poses a threat to their world order.

But they are nicer than were before, according to Althouse. What the heck does that mean?
The most upvoted comment had a lot of dumbness. What is the big deal about taxing corporations? Don't people understand how economics works? Taxes are part of the cost of doing business that is passed on to consumers. Do liberals actually believe that the taxes are paid by shareholders or company officers?
"Whoopee! The grubby Republicans have lowered corporate taxes by 2%! Now I can buy gold-plated bathroom fixtures for the yacht!"
I think we will see if Trump can do wholesale politics at the convention. I don't think that he will walk away from equity.

Terry said...

Insofar as Saudi Arabia, and other middle eastern nations wherein we have a presence are concerned, their oil wealth should be given us "free", including shipping costs, and refining, if they do not want to pay in cash.
If the Saudis believe the US will not have their back, they will buy or build nukes. After Obama's sour deal with Iran, they may do that anyway.

Drago said...

Terry: "Do liberals actually believe that the taxes are paid by shareholders or company officers?"

Yes, they actually do.

AReasonableMan said...

NYT said ...
"appeared to reflect little consideration for potential consequences."


I also was struck by this line but my interpretation was that Trump knows full well that "no plan survives contact with the enemy." These are dynamic problems and you can never be certain how you opponent will react.

Trump's basic argument for his candidacy is that in negotiations a capacity for psychological intimidation and flat-out deceit, qualities he has in spades, are more valuable than all the white papers from all the think tanks in DC. I largely agree with him. The panic and political cowardice that was in evidence following 9/11 and again after the financial crisis was not a good advertisement for the nous of our political class.

Nyamujal said...

@Terry, Why build nukes when you can buy them off the shelf from a Sunni ally like Pakistan.

Sebastian said...

"easily digestible" If you like word salad without substance, evidence, or argument, sure.

NYT should be nice to Trump. Apart from the wall, a few comments about Muzzies, and wanting to make America great again, what's not to like for Progs? He's a Dem who's in favor of touchback amnesty, wants to keep all entitlements, thinks W lied us into Iraq and we should stay out, has never uttered a conservative word about SCOTUS or the administrative state, and disparages the GOPe. And of course he'll lose, so there's that. No point getting too worked up, except to rile up the Dem base a bit to ensure turnout.

Nyamujal said...

@Terry, despite all the posturing, we have the Saudis by the balls. Those NYT comments are so off the charts dumb that I doubt anyone there can even point to Saudi Arabia, on the map or say anything interesting about the complex geopolitics of the region.
Every time I see the republicans talk foreign policy on TV I want to throw something at it. God help us all if these jamokes get anywhere near the Oval office.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

It's trite to say it. But, has it ever been more true to note that a country as great as America with more than 300 million people should be able to find a President less lame than Trump-Cruz-HRC-Sanders?

Folks always say they're choosing the least bad option. But, have the bad options ever been this bad?

Qwinn said...

Funny, the vast number of occasions on which I've read the NY Times advocate for socialism or appeasement, not once have I ever seem to consider even the possibility of unintended consequences.

dreams said...

Why do some people assume Hillary will win, I don't see it.

Terry said...

Nyamujal said...
"Those NYT comments are so off the charts dumb that I doubt anyone there can even point to Saudi Arabia, on the map or say anything interesting about the complex geopolitics of the region."
Americans should know that the alliance between the house of Saud and the Wahabis is very strong, and it goes back centuries. When the Saud's tried to make w/o the Wahabi's support. They fared poorly. With the backing of the Wahabis, they became more powerful. It is not an alliance that will just fall apart when the Saudi royal family comes to their senses.

dreams said...

KY is good for Villanova, going to the final four and won it all in 1985 in Lexington, KY.

Amanda said...

Dreams, every single poll of head to head match ups of Trump against Hillary and especially Bernie have Hillary or Bernie winning in a landslide. In the latest poll Bernie was up on Trump by 20 points, Hillary by 12 or so. If you think every single poll for the last 3 months has been wrong, then you are living in some alternate reality.

chickelit said...

@Althouse: Thank you for pointing out the primacy of negotiating skills. Years ago, amba tweeted a provocative question, asking her followers to think of what they would really need in the aftermath of a calamitous event. I answered:

NEEDS: intangibles: negotiating/bargaining skills; tangibles: clothes on our back, good health.

I was thinking earthquake or nuclear holocaust then, but an end-of-the country scenario works too.

See, I was trying to be all Trump-like back then -- seven years ago.

/ego

dreams said...

I don't have much respect for polls and I don't believe them. People lie to pollsters because of political correctness.

traditionalguy said...

New York City values Trump more than they hate Trump. They know him and respect him.

But all a politician ever gets from people is either love or respect, and respect is better because it lasts. Love is a transitory, second hand emotion that only lasts until a better offer comes along.

Birkel said...

According to March 1980 polls, President Carter won a landslide.

chickelit said...

dreams said...I don't have much respect for polls and I don't believe them. People lie to pollsters because of political correctness.

Men -- especially older ones, would lie to a pollster in front of their wives in order to go along, get along. In the privacy of the voting booth hoever, they vote their mind.

narciso said...

the saudis encouraged the wahhabi faith that curiously makes them heretics to their countrymen btw the two previous kingdoms, lasted about 60 years, not 90

Jim Howard said...

With respect to corporations moving overseas, does Trump plan to prevent foreign corporations from moving to or setting up factories in the United States?

Why doesn't Trump point out that the U.S. does place a high 'tariff' on U.S. companies desiring to return overseas profits back to the United States? This policy is so insane I'm surprised even Benie doesn't understand how stupid this is.

Amanda said...

It stands to reason that not every single poll for months now is an outlier. But I don't blame you for wishful thinking.

Birkel said...

Amanda:

Find the poll that showed Carter losing in March 1980.

tom swift said...

What a strange article. It treats the obvious - "He approached almost every current international conflict through the prism of a negotiation" - as if it's some arcane message found floating in a bottle. But it's just good sense, good business, and good politics.

There are only two ways to approach international conflict - treat it as a war, or as a negotiation. If a war, you can try to conquer (and I doubt the Times would cluck approvingly over that), or you can simply surrender (a la Obama). If a negotiation, you use your skills to get the best deal you can, and leave the other party with the shorter end of the stick.

Even America's most belligerent president, James Polk, concluded most of his international business successfully by negotiation. On the Oregon boundary - "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight" - he didn't get Fifty-Four Forty, but he didn't have to fight, either, and everybody has seemed fairly happy with the result ever since. Polk did fight Mexico - winning the right to BUY Texas and California. Polk gained office promising to solve six outstanding international conflicts, and he did indeed solve all six, five of them without any fighting at all. And he did it all in one term. That's what negotiation gets you.

Negotiations and deals are the way to conduct business, if you can do it well. If you can't do it well - and sometimes all you have is the Neville Chamberlain option - then you have to use force. But try dealing first. It's quicker and much much cheaper.

Trump at least makes the noises of a very sensible man.

Michael K said...

"If you think every single poll for the last 3 months has been wrong, then you are living in some alternate reality."

Amanda, everyone is living in an alternate reality to yours.

I don;t like Trump but he has a couple of good ideas.

One is that Muslims are not our friends, including the Saudis.

Two is that Immigration is going to drown all the workers and makers in a sea of eaters.

The rest is details.

Fracking, which Obama and the left opposes, has given us the option to let the Saudis drift away. The Muslims world is entering a civil war between Shia and Sunni. We can be neutral if we don't need their oil.

We don't.

grimson said...

Mr. Trump emphasized the importance of “unpredictability” for an American president, arguing that the country’s traditions of democracy and openness had made its actions too easy for adversaries and allies alike to foresee.

You do not make allies by being unpredictable, and adversaries are more likely dissuaded if they are certain there will be a reprisal than wondering if there will be a reprisal.

Nothing in the article had Trump commenting on how he will handle America's adversaries--it sounds like he thinks we just need to make our allies pay us more, and then everything will fall into place.

Terry said...

Well, the NYT article serves to remind every Republican and Independent that Obama is a shitty negotiator. I mean, he is really, really, bad. He doesn't even negotiate with the GOP, he just runs over them, with the help of a compliant press, or he issues 'executive orders' to get around congress. Bush and Clinton could find common ground with a hostile congress. Obama can't.
Obama picked two really lousy negotiators to run the State Department as well. Hillary's list of accomplishments as SoS looks like what a first lady's should be.

Birkel said...

tom swift:

How did Jefferson's negotiation with the Barbary Pirates go?

narciso said...

history doesn't repeat, but it sometimes rhymes,

http://www.gallup.com/vault/189689/gallup-vault-ronald-reagan-foot-mouth-problem.aspx

Terry said...

My personal theory is that as the year progresses Americans will see more and more of Hillary giving political speeches to her supporters, and will decide that, no matter what, they do not want to have to watch this shrieking harridan scold them for the next four years.

King Kane said...

The underlying assumptions are that:

1) Those nations that are provided American military services are currently not paying for their fair share

and,

2) Those nations will want continuing American military service, instead of investing in their own, when more payment is requested.

And finally,

3) Those nations are not judgment-proof. It probably makes little sense to "negotiate" with, say, Philippines. (no offense to Philippines)

Oh, I almost forgot - there is a special case of Israel, about which even mighty Trump seems to have trouble "telling like it is." Good luck juggling with negotiations for profits.

BTW - Why does Trump complain about Japan, South Korea but not Germany? Does Germany pay for her fair share while Asian countries do not?

narciso said...

Germany doesn't have high tariff barriers in the same way as japan and korea, but he's not keen on nato, one of his advisers, carter page, is antithetical to it,

chickelit said...

@Bikel:

Thomas Jefferson presaged the coming of Trump:

We took the liberty to make some enquiries concerning the ground of their pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador [of Tripoli] answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.Letter from the commissioners (John Adams, Thomas Jefferson) to John Jay, 28 March 1786

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"Fracking, which Obama and the left opposes, has given us the option to let the Saudis drift away. The Muslims world is entering a civil war between Shia and Sunni. We can be neutral if we don't need their oil.

We don't."

Does neutral mean no economic or military support or sales? And, doesn't neutrality mean that we don't attack or subvert any Shia or Sunni country (e.g. Iran getting nukes)?

Fracking isn't the golden ticket. If anything it may allow us to loosen ties with Sunnis, but this would only help Iran. Are you sure a stronger Iran is a good thing?

chickelit said...

KK asks: BTW - Why does Trump complain about Japan, South Korea but not Germany? Does Germany pay for her fair share while Asian countries do not?

Well, there's the obvious Drumpf = Hitler answer that Amanda buys into. And then there's the fact that Germany underwrites the rest of the EU.

King Kane said...

And I cannot help but bemused by Althouse's rant about NYT's less than 100% respectfulness towards Trump. What is 100% respectful and what is 98% respectful? Rofl, hilarity here knows no bound.

Birkel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Birkel said...

chickelit:

As my comment made plain, I am aware that Islamism has been a problem these last 1300 years.

Amanda said...

Michael K, I agree the Saudis aren't our friends, that's a given. As for Trump's brilliant idea of registering American Muslims and legal immigrants of Muslim faith, that's a pretty damn extreme idea that doesn't reflect American values and is unConstitutional.

chickelit said...

@Amanda: The problem is -- as Jefferson noted -- the "musselman's" values are not congruent with American values. This is a unique problem for a growing subset of Muslims as we saw in Brussels last week. Or are you of the mind that radical Muslims are on the wane?

chickelit said...

@Birkel: Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Chuck said...

It seems like every time that Professor Althouse finds a column in the New York Times that she finds vaguely interesting, on some emotional/communications level, there is another column at nearly the same time in the Wall Street Journal, that blows the economic doors off the Times writers.

Today is no exception. The CEO and Chairman of FedEx, Frederick Smith, authored an ep-ed column for the current Weekend Journal on the subject of international trade. (Do you know the personal story of Smith? If we are in an era of judging content by the personal stories of the authors, look up Smith's!) The op-ed doesn't even mention the name "Trump." It didn't need to. Here:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-trade-made-america-great-1458943320

The closing paragraph:

History shows that trade made easy, affordable and fast -- political obstacles notwithstanding -- always begets more trade, more jobs, more prosperity. From clipper ships to the computer age, despite economic cycles, conflict and shifting demographics, humans have demonstrated an innate desire to travel and trade. Given this, the future is unlikely to diverge from the arc of the past.

Sebastian said...

"One is that Muslims are not our friends, including the Saudis." Right. So therefore Trump will . . .

"Two is that Immigration is going to drown all the workers and makers in a sea of eaters." Wait. I thought The Narrative was that immigrants were stealing our jobs. So we are going to drown them in a sea of native-born eaters? If we we can drown them, why do we need a wall?

"We can be neutral if we don't need their oil" We can, but it won't help us. Sooner or later, it'll be our problem anyway.

Of course, I oppose Trumpian touchback amnesty and favor both a more radical change in immigration policy and a much tougher policy on Islamism than Trump has even contemplated.

chickelit said...

@Chuck: History is not -- nor has it ever been -- a smooth arc. There are occasional hiccups (hiccoughs?)*

I despise data smoothing.

____________
*The word could use an annalysis.

themightypuck said...

According to NN Taleb who has written a lot about risk and appears to be reading "The Art of the Deal", Trump is extremely concerned about limiting downside risk while preserving upside options.

Chuck said...

chickelit: Who used the term "smooth arc"? That is, who beside you, in setting up your strawman argument?

M Jordan said...

Those polls that everyone cites showing Hillary and Bernie creaming Trump also show Cruz beating Hillary. Nobody in their right mind believes that will happen.

The problem with general election matchup polls on the middle of the primary season -- especially hotly contested primaries -- is they are measuring wind more than temperature. Reagan was indeed 25 points behind Carter in March 1980. He beat Carter by 10.

Once the conventions are over, matchup polls are crucial.

Drago said...

Amanda: "As for Trump's brilliant idea of registering American Muslims and legal immigrants of Muslim faith, that's a pretty damn extreme idea that doesn't reflect American values and is unconstitutional."

LOL

I guess we don't already have any lists of muslim immigrants to the US even though there is supposedly this wonderful vetting being performed by the Obama admin on all immigrants.

When narratives collide....

chickelit said...

Chuck wrote: chickelit: Who used the term 'smooth arc'? That is, who beside you, in setting up your strawman argument?

Sorry chuckster, but your cited "the future is unlikely to diverge from the arc of the past" sounded pretty smoothed to me.

StephenFearby said...

This comment (to the Times article) describes Trump's problem exceptionally well:

jeremiah Somewhere over North America 10 hours ago

"Mr. Trump has finally said some things that seem to make sense. The problem, which he has created for himself, is why should anyone believe him? Who knows what he will say or do in the future? Some say - give him a chance. I am not willing to take that risk for the country. The Presidency is not a position for on the job training, and he has absolutely no experience. The only thing we can count on is his ability to react emotionally when criticized, making it all personal, and then changing the subject to divert attention. Not the characteristics we need in a leader."

Further captured in this March 24 Daily Show verbatim reenactment of a portion of the Trump interview with the Washington Post Editorial Board....in which Donald Trump (Roy Wood Jr.) explains with admirable gravitas why he really doesn't have small hands.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofL8fsd41mI


The Cruz twitter universe would get a lot of mileage out of linking to it.

Saint Croix said...

Michael Savage, who is a big Trump supporter, is ripping him for the character assassination of Ted Cruz.

chickelit said...

The Cruz twitter universe would get a lot of mileage out of linking to it.

True only because they measure distance in "clicks"


That's a Canadian joke, dammit!

Saint Croix said...

That hand thing is fucking insane. Is that word for word from the transcript? Holy shit!

chickelit said...

The anti-Little Satan wrote: Michael Savage, who is a big Trump supporter, is ripping him for the character assassination of Ted Cruz.

Scott Adams already threatened that and Ace already did that.

There was a Roger Simon retweet today that was either part of a hoax or else it backs the NE story: link

cubanbob said...

The President of France has no shame in promoting French exports. Her Majesty the Queen Of England has no shame promoting British exports. Indeed I cant' think of any country but for the US that doesn't have its national leader pushing his or hers country's exports. Trump (putting it in the best possible light) is simply saying that the President Of The United States should do no less insofar as the US national interest is concerned. Why is this even controversial?

In 1990-1991 George HW Bush manged to get the Kuwait's to pay for the cost of liberating Kuwait. If we are going to be in essence mercenaries like the Hessian's for the Saudi's and the Gulf States then they should pay the costs. No thanks to Obama and the Democrats but in deed thanks to fracking and "drill baby drill" we don't need the Gulf Arabs for oil but others do. Those others can either provide the manpower and equipment or pay for our troops as they are the principle beneficiaries.

Terry said...

Chuck quoted Frederick Smith:
"History shows that trade made easy, affordable and fast -- political obstacles notwithstanding -- always begets more trade, more jobs, more prosperity."
Nope. Wrong. Nothing about economics is always true, all the time, for everybody. If it were, it would be a science, and not a humanity. The 'political obstacles notwithstanding' is Smith's escape hatch, and, of course, there are always political obstacles, so Smith should not have used the qualifier 'notwithstanding.'

chickelit said...

PLEASE note how "anti-little Satan" is actually pro-God.

(If you're a language student).

veni vidi vici said...

"The Presidency is not a position for on the job training, and he has absolutely no experience. The only thing we can count on is his ability to react emotionally when criticized, making it all personal, and then changing the subject to divert attention. Not the characteristics we need in a leader."

Seriously, after the past 7 years can the blowhard concern trolls put a fork in this shite argument already? Its only effect is to immediately remind any sentient non-ideologue of Obama's having served two terms lauded all the way by the same folks now making the argument against Trump.

And they wonder what people are so tired of anymore in American politics. Pathetic.

Mark Caplan said...

The now hoary purpose of the large American troop emplacement in Europe was to deter Soviet military aggression; in Japan and South Korea, Red Chinese military aggression.

Not that those American troops could fend off a Soviet or Chinese attack but that America would honor its commitment to defend its allies if thousands of American troops were placed in harms way. A mere mutual defense treaty alone was not thought sufficiently credible as a deterrent, with good reason.

rhhardin said...

We come first and everybody else pays is the same as a voluntary transaction. Both sides come out ahead or the trade doesn't happen. In particular our side comes out ahead. You'd want our representatives to follow that, or you elect new representatives.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@Mark Caplan

Yep, the official US war plan for Korea is that the thousands of soldiers on the DMZ get over run, and mostly killed, in a couple of hours if the Norks invade. The rest of the US forces, along with the ROC (South Korean Army) fight a holding action trying to slow the Nork's advance while the US brings in sufficient reinforcements to push them back, which, back in the 80s was expected to take 2 weeks. These days, I would be surprised if we have sufficient man power to push the Norks back.

In any event, millions of South Koreans would be dead and the infrastructure they have built up since the armistice would be reduced to rubble.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Make that ROK - Republic of Korea

Saint Croix said...

hey Chick we're all good. No worries!

And Happy Easter.

Quaestor said...

Yep, the official US war plan for Korea is that the thousands of soldiers on the DMZ get over run, and mostly killed, in a couple of hours if the Norks invade.

Official? Sez who?

Hagar said...

The United States has always talked big about partnership with its allies, but in practice has negotiated with the enemy right over their heads. Sometimes - a lot of the time, actually - the negotiations have not even been with the enemy, but have just been between our domestic factions right here in Washington.

It kind of comes with the territory when you are the biggest and meanest son of a bitch in the valley.
But naturally our allies - or hangers on - do not feel all that obliged to sacrifice for carrying out policies they have little or no say in determining.

Hagar said...

and do not see much sign that these policies were fashioned with their interests in mind, but generally just appear to be what the US wants to do and would like for them to go along, but whether or not they do, the US is going to go that way anyway.

AllenS said...

grimson said...
Nothing in the article had Trump commenting on how he will handle America's adversaries--it sounds like he thinks we just need to make our allies pay us more, and then everything will fall into place.

Please provide information on how Cruz, or Rubio, or Sanders, or Clinton, or whoever you decide to vote for will "handle America's adversaries".

Has any commentator on this blog ever stated why they will vote for someone besides Trump and then given a detailed account what their candidate will do? No you don't, and you don't because you don't have a clue what they will do. Why is so much demanded of Trump?

I'll answer that: it's because everyone else running sucks even worse that Trump, and you know it.

Hagar said...

It's scary, but once again ARM is right about something.

I also was struck by this line but my interpretation was that Trump knows full well that "no plan survives contact with the enemy."

Paco Wové said...

"The Presidency is not a position for on the job training,"

Have to agree with v³ above; this is a stupid argument. Why has the country convinced itself that simply being a politician – let alone some sort of wonkish technocrat – is either necessary or sufficient "training" for being President?

Curious George said...

"AllenS said...
grimson said...
Nothing in the article had Trump commenting on how he will handle America's adversaries--it sounds like he thinks we just need to make our allies pay us more, and then everything will fall into place.

Please provide information on how Cruz, or Rubio, or Sanders, or Clinton, or whoever you decide to vote for will "handle America's adversaries"

Sander will just soil himself. but in fairness, that was going to happen anyway.

sinz52 said...

"ep, the official US war plan for Korea is that the thousands of soldiers on the DMZ get over run, and mostly killed, in a couple of hours if the Norks invade"

Your use of the term "Norks" tells me that you haven't realized that the Cold War has been over for 25 years.

The USSR collapsed without firing a shot, despite its 30,000 nuclear warheads.

No one should lose any sleep worrying about North Korea.

Drago said...

Sinz52: "The USSR collapsed without firing a shot, despite its 30,000 nuclear warheads."

It takes a special degree of historical ignorance to write something like that.

Bobby said...

Ron Winkleheimer,

"Yep, the official US war plan for Korea is that the thousands of soldiers on the DMZ get over run, and mostly killed, in a couple of hours if the Norks invade. The rest of the US forces, along with the ROC (South Korean Army) fight a holding action trying to slow the Nork's advance while the US brings in sufficient reinforcements to push them back, which, back in the 80s was expected to take 2 weeks. These days, I would be surprised if we have sufficient man power to push the Norks back."

That hasn't been the official US war plan for many years now.

For starters, there are no longer US forces on the DMZ -- since about 2005, a ROK Army battalion exclusively patrols the Joint Security Area. These days, the furthest north you will find US forces on the Korean Peninsula is Camp Casey, where the 210th Field Artillery Brigade is based (the maneuver forces are essentially co-located at Camp Hovey). Much of this is a reflection of the emergence of contemporary ROK military capabilities, which are substantially better than how old-timers tend to remember them.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Your use of the term "Norks" tells me that you haven't realized that the Cold War has been over for 25 years.

And your stating that assumption tells me that you are an idiot.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Official? Sez who?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-5027.htm

They don't keep this stuff secret, they tell you about it when you get briefed upon your arrival in country.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@Bobby

Don't like to think of myself as an old-timer, but I was in the Korea back in the early 90s, so I guess I am. But looking at the oplan 5027, it still looks like a lot of US forces are going to get killed if the North Koreans attack.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

And Camp Casey is still pretty close to the DMZ, but so is Seoul for that matter.

Bobby said...

Ron,

"They don't keep this stuff secret, they tell you about it when you get briefed upon your arrival in country."

I'm well aware of that. I've served on the Korean Peninsula before, I'm guessing more recently than you. From your own citation, you can find the following under OPLAN 5027-04:

In late 2003 it was reported ["Military Alters Plans For Possible Conflicts" By Bradley Graham Washington Post November 18, 2003, pg. 18] that " ... the new plans would allow the United States to respond without waiting for as many ground forces to arrive, by substituting air power for artillery and getting such critical equipment as counter-battery radars -- for pinpointing enemy mortar and artillery fire -- on scene ahead of the rest of their divisions. The resulting force might not be as "elegant" as planners would like, but "it will certainly be capable... "" (bold added for emphasis)

In the paragraph under OPLAN 5027-08, you find:

"Most American troops will be moved out of Seoul by the end of 2007, and all of the US 2nd Infantry Division that's currently patrolling the region north of Seoul will be moved south of Seoul by 2008. Existing military facilities at Osan Air Base and Camp Humphreys, both located south of Seoul, are being expanded and upgraded to accept the redeployed forces."

The "old days" of 2ID being a "speed bump" and III Corps providing the preponderance of ground combat power during the counter-attack are long gone (and thank goodness for that). Today, the ROK Army is expected to absorb the initial North Korean invasion and to provide the majority of ground combat troops during decisive combat operations (heavily supported by US firepower- the USAF attack squadrons, the field artillery brigade and the combat aviation brigade's Apaches)-- this is why a ROK 4-star general, the Deputy CFC-K Commander, is dual-hatted as the theater Ground Component Commander. We'd still surge US military forces to the Peninsula, but we expect the ROKs to provide a majority of the ground forces (as well they should- it's their country). All of this is available on unclassed sources.

Bobby said...

Ron,

"Don't like to think of myself as an old-timer, but I was in the Korea back in the early 90s,"

Yup, that's an old timer. The OPLAN has changed numerous times since the early 90s.

"But looking at the oplan 5027, it still looks like a lot of US forces are going to get killed if the North Koreans attack"

Oh, yeah, that's almost a certainty. I'm not disputing that a war with North Korea would be anything less than brutal, bloody and devastating for all parties involved. Hopefully, it never comes to that.

"And Camp Casey is still pretty close to the DMZ, but so is Seoul for that matter"

Right, but neither Camp Casey nor Seoul are considered now or have ever been considered to be the DMZ. The DMZ has a very precise definition and it includes neither Camp Casey nor Seoul. US military forces in Area I and Area II are still well within the range of North Korean artillery. But that's not the same thing as saying they are in the DMZ, which is what you said. And, for that matter, even when you were there, there was never a time when even a plurality of US forces on the Korean Peninsula were in the DMZ. It wasn't designed to be the Maginot Line.

edutcher said...

AprilApple said...

They see the writing on the wall. Hillary will easily beat Trump. Why not be nice? NYT only nasty to anyone who poses a threat to their world order.

April's doing her "I hate Trump, so I want him to lose even though I claim I love this country" thing again.

Polls in March mean nothing, not to mention they're now used as battlespace prep.

We are, after all, 8 months out and a lot can happen. Hillary can be indicted, fall deathly ill, die, do another book tour. Then there's Bernie, who seems to be showing new fight. There are also intangibles like market crash, terror attack inside the US, etc.

Come back after Labor Day.

Sammy Finkelman said...

They're zactually giving his comments more respect, and treating them as more thoughtful, than they really are. I'm not sure Donald Trump was echoing somethinbg Nixon said about being unpredictable - maybe he was, because that's where it comes from, but he may not know that Nixon said that.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Terry on 3/26/16 at 9:38 PM CDT

If the Saudis believe the US will not have their back, they will buy or build nukes. After Obama's sour deal with Iran, they may do that anyway.

Trump says maybe Japan and South Korea should do that and maybe they'll do that anyway.

Sammy Finkelman said...

The New York Times was actually interpreting Trump's comments in a way so as to make them more solid. Not that what Trump ssaid would not imply that. But he simply was not that clear. They did that with what he said about China's militarization of newly-created islands in the South China Sea where he talked about economic pressure (which is his one answer to anything with China) The news article commented, though, he wasn't mentioning anything about the idea that Chia might retaliate.

Sammy Finkelman said...

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...3/26/16, 9:52 PM

It's trite to say it. But, has it ever been more true to note that a country as great as America with more than 300 million people should be able to find a President less lame than Trump-Cruz-HRC-Sanders?

Folks always say they're choosing the least bad option. But, have the bad options ever been this bad?


Probably not even in 1972.




n.n said...

Trump has a pro-native message that reconciles individual dignity and intrinsic value with natural imperatives, and resonates with a growing number of Americans. He has demonstrated that he is capable of leading American citizens to confront the politically corrupt special and peculiar interest arrayed against them.

Michael K said...

"Fracking isn't the golden ticket. If anything it may allow us to loosen ties with Sunnis, but this would only help Iran. Are you sure a stronger Iran is a good thing?"

I'm not sure of anything in that part of the world but we now have an option we haven't had since about 1950.

I see the Saudis and Pakistan as allies as both are Sunni, like ISIS is. Iran is Shia and that is about 20% of Muslims.

Correlation of forces, my man, correlation of forces.

Bobby said...

Michael K,

Generally-speaking, the Sunni-Shi'a schism does not manifest itself as a frontline issue among Muslims outside of the Middle East. Pakistan actually has very strong relations with Iran, dating back to the former's founding as a state, including a free trade agreement, cooperation on economic and security issues, and a huge majority (~75%) of Pakistanis view Iran favorably (in fact, if I am not mistaken, more than any other country in the world) -- suggesting that it's not just elite cooperation, but rather widespread public diplomacy.

Of course, Pakistan also maintains a strong relationship with Saudi Arabia, but there's little reason to believe they wouldn't be able to continue this two-tracked policy well into the future.

Moneyrunner said...

Glenn Reynolds says that Trump is running in 1970s Rust Belt campaign. There is some truth in that but Trump is adding another dimension. I don’t think that democrats ever ran against the media or political correctness. The media were their natural allies and political correctness had not metastasized to the cancer that it is now. Wait till he unleashes on academia and characterizes them as corrupt robbers of the American dream for millions of young people.

I am in the investment and financial planning business and am amazed by the student loan debt that 30-somethings are carrying at 6.5% interest rates (mortgages are under 4%). And these people are not highly paid executives; they are barely middle class. Academics are the moral equivalent of Philip Morris employees, knowingly creating the environment that will destroy them financially.

Michael K said...

"there's little reason to believe they wouldn't be able to continue this two-tracked policy well into the future."

That is fine with me. Remember that Pakistan is running the Taliban. They are really one entity.

Iran is run by a maniacal mullocracy which has a corps of Praetorians to keep the people down. Due to the Shah, Iran is highly literate and mosque attendance is down at 1% or so. The birth rate is as low as Europe. The population will crash in 20 years like China. The mullahs may choose to push the button while they still have a reasonable military age male population.

The Saudis also have a large unemployed male population.

Germany and France 1870.

Bobby said...

Michael K,

"mosque attendance is down at 1% or so"

Do you have a source for that? I've never seen it that low. I've seen numerous studies that suggest Iran's weekly mosque attendance rate (among only their Muslims, of course) between 20%-30%, which is substantially lower than-- usually less than half of-- almost every other Muslim country studied (former Communist republics Albania and Azerbaijan consistently have the lowest rates). But I've never seen anything like 1%. Thanks in advance!

cubanbob said...

Trump's message to the extent there is one is that there isn't a shortage of poor people in this country and there isn't a labor shortage in the country so why import more poor people and worsen the labor market for those at the bottom and one or two rungs above them?
That's pretty much it when it comes to illegal immigration and H-1B visa workers. The subtext is presumably that if you have a tighter labor market not only will wages go up but government spending will go down as otherwise unemployed people get jobs and those who can work but are on welfare can be forced into the labor market.

As for Muslim refugees, not an unreasonable caution when as has been seen in Europe terrorists have been getting into Europe so therefore until a way to vet the refugees can be established there is no reason to take the risks.

And as for trade, his shtick is fair trade and even that has a bit of common sense insofar as it appears US exports get to be burdened to some degree (such as our agricultural exports to the EU) and the US is less restrictive than some of our trading partners (not necessarily true in many instances). Trump's position on currency manipulation is a bit ridiculous since any country with a zero percent interest rate is trying to promote inflation which is in of itself a currency devaluation. However he does have a point on excessive regulation that hobbles US competitiveness.

The difference between Clinton and Trump is that while both are in over their heads if they were to get elected I suspect Trumps knows this and figures he just needs to hire the right competent people whereas Clinton thinks she is competent and probably can't tolerate people who are more competent than she is. Plus so far, the FBI isn't investigating Trump so there's that as well. One thing about a Trump Presidency is that with a Republican Congress he will stay on the straight and narrow since a Republican Congress can say no to a Republican President unlike their inability to do so with a Democrat Congress.

Don't blame me, I voted for Cruz in my state's primary election.

C R Krieger said...

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
It's trite to say it. But, has it ever been more true to note that a country as great as America with more than 300 million people should be able to find a President less lame than Trump-Cruz-HRC-Sanders?

Folks always say they're choosing the least bad option. But, have the bad options ever been this bad?


Yes. 1972. Way back, a long time ago. Senator McGovern and President Nixon.

Regards  —  Cliff

C R Krieger said...

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...
It's trite to say it. But, has it ever been more true to note that a country as great as America with more than 300 million people should be able to find a President less lame than Trump-Cruz-HRC-Sanders?

Folks always say they're choosing the least bad option. But, have the bad options ever been this bad?


Yes. 1972. Way back, a long time ago. Senator McGovern and President Nixon.

Regards  —  Cliff