IRAN - AMERICA'S NEXT STEPS

 

[Published in the Sunday Guardian of India: After Iran: America’s Next Steps]

What happens after the shooting stops?

This is Washington, DC’s main topic of conversation in the wake of Epic Fury annihilating Iran’s leadership.

The answer is fundamental to the balance of President Donald Trump’s Administration.  What follows removing Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro?  What is next in Iran?  What happens if the Cuban Communists fall?

America has shown the world that it is the most formidable military power in history.  Unfortunately, during the 21^st Century, America has also shown its ability to lose the peace after winning the war.

With the end of the Cold War, America guiding nations toward pro-West free societies has ranged from the “good”, to the “bad”, to the “ugly”.

SOVIET EMPIRE

The fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, marked the end of 72 years of tyranny for Russia and many “captive” nations.  The countries of the USSR, the Baltics, and Eastern Europe had viable opposition elements.  Most Warsaw Pact nations were viable democracies before being conquered by the Nazis and Soviets.

Credible leaders, such as Poland’s Lech Walesa and the Czech Republic’s Vaclav Havel, were ready to step in.  Dissident movements like Solidarity and Samizdat provided a core of policy and political activists to fill the power vacuum as Eastern European leaders fell.

The United States did not “nation build”.  It offered important support to the emerging leaders who were shaking off generations of oppression.

Bipartisanship dominated this effort.  The Clinton State Department and Speaker Newt Gingrich hosted delegations from the new nations to personally see Congress in action.  Prime Ministers, General Secretaries, and Parliamentary leaders spent days being mentored by the Clerk of the House and the House’s Chief Administrative Officer on how voting, legislative processes, and constituent services could be adopted to their respective settings.

Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, under a State Department contract, held week-long training sessions for Members of various Parliaments.  Senators, Members of Congress, and the House’s Chief Administrative Officer conducted these interactive seminars to provide real world, hands-on, insights on how to effectively represent their country’s interests while managing debate and opposing views.

The European Union stepped in to help align legal practices and guide the new nations into compliance and ultimately membership in the European Union (EU).  Nonprofits, such as the Atlantic Council and The European Institute facilitated dialogue with EU leaders and regional stakeholders.  European Ambassadors, posted both the U.S. and in Eastern Europe, served as coaches and mentors to their counterparts.

The key to this success was allowing each nation to evolve at its own pace based upon its own unique identity, history, and culture.  Adoption of “best practices” and “lessons learned” were offered but not mandated.

The only failure was Russia.  While Duma Members enthusiastically participated in Harvard’s courses, they could not anticipate that Boris Yelstin’s alcoholism and complicity in corruption would lead to the deal that brought Vladimir Putin to power.

AFGHANISTAN

The successes of Eastern Europe were totally lost on the Neo-Conservatives (NeoCons) that dominated the inner circles of President George W. Bush.

Afghanistan was a feudal society, divided among villages elders, clergy, and warlords, all owing titular loyalty to the Shah. 

Mohammadzai tribal leaders ruled Afghanistan for 155 years. The last Shah was toppled in a Soviet-backed coup in April 1978.  What followed were years of unrest.  This included civil war, the assassination of the Soviet puppet leader, and the full-scale invasion and occupation of the country by Soviet troops in December 1979.

A long guerilla war was waged by the pro-West Northern Alliance and Islamist factions known as the Mujahideen.  Eventually, the most radical of the factions, the Taliban, dominated the Mujahideen.

The Soviet withdrawal on April 14, 1988, left an uneasy coalition government between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban. The leader of the Northern Alliance was assassinated days before the 9-11 attack on America.  These events consolidated Taliban control but also led to the United States toppling the regime in December 2001.

The U.S. chose to “nation build”.  Ignoring history and culture, Bush officials installed Hamid Karzai in December 2001, after the Taliban government was overthrown.  Karzai had been the CIA’s “paymaster” for moving funds to Afghan guerillas.  He would prove to be corrupt and untrustworthy, selling the country’s mineral rights to China for $40 million to his overseas bank accounts.

Bush officials prevented the reemergence of the traditional feudal society and refused to bring back to Shah’s family for national unification.  Instead, they attempted to establish Western Democracy with a tight timetable of before the 2008 U.S. Presidential election. The fact that it took Western Europe over 600 years to evolve from feudalism to true representative government was lost in the arrogance of occupation.

Billions of dollars poured into the country for training and infrastructure, much of it wasted and defrauded by contractors and Afghan elites.

The weakened local communities depended on NATO and U.S. forces to keep the peace, while Western values and processes were force feed to the populace. This became fertile ground for the Taliban to arise and win. Karzai stole the 2009 Presidential election against several credible opponents. His crumbling credibility, rampant corruption, and suppression of dissent placed Afghanistan in a death spiral. 

In September 2014, Ashraf Ghani, one of two opposition candidates in the 2009 stolen election became President.  It was too little too late.  The Taliban were dominating the battlefield and ultimately the negotiations for retaking power.  Their forces rolled into Kabul on August 15, 2021, after a disastrous withdrawal of American forces.

IRAQ

In 2003, Bush’s Neocons waged a war based on highly questionable intelligence.  They proceeded to line their pockets with billions in bogus contracts while wrecking the country.

The U.S. likes to establish highly centralized governments.  This ignores the federal system and local governance that made America a success.  Partly, centralization is lazy.  Having everything inside the highly fortified Baghdad “Green Zone” meant diplomats, bureaucrats, and contractors could avoid learning anything about the real situation and not leave the comforts of Western food and entertainment.

Unfortunately, this was the recipe for disaster.  Rulers, going back to 1639, understood that Iraq was three separate nations: the Kurds in the north; the Shiites along the coast; and the Sunnis in the center. The British bundled Iraq together after the First World War to consolidate their hold through a puppet King.  This fiction fell apart in 1958 when the Ba’ath Party took control and continued to rule a contrived unitary state.  Saddam Hussein emerged as dictator in 1988.

The 2003 war toppled Hussein, ushering in twenty years of waste, fraud, abuse.  Instead of pursuing a federal system, Bush occupation officials forced a strong unitary state.  It was inevitable that the three historic areas would bridle at this contrivance. 

The most tragic were the Kurds.  They had enjoyed semi-independence with the establishment of a “no fly zone” over their region since the 1991 war.  They had oil and a strong traditional governance structure.  They reached out to Western companies to help develop their lands and were crushed by the U.S. State Department.

One example says it all.

Kurdistan is populated by small villages isolated in deep valleys by high mountain ridges.  These small villages enjoy ample water as each is situated by small streams. This was ideal for deploying small immersible turbines that could generate electricity for each village. A U.S. firm had the proven technology, and a strategic partnership was forged to bring electricity throughout rural Kurdistan.

Enter the U.S. State Department.  Bush officials halted the partnership asserting that only electricity generated by hydroelectric dams on the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers would suffice.  They declared that decentralized electricity would weaken the Central Baghdad Government.  The Kurds and their U.S. company pointed out that (1) there was no plan to create hydroelectric dams to serve the entire country, (2) a network of power lines and substations would be easy targets for sabotage and impossible to defend, and (3) the region was subject to earthquakes that would disrupt a centralized grid.  The Bush bureaucrats refused to listen and stopped the project.  To this day, these villages are without electricity.

THE FUTURE

Venezuela has a viable opposition movement that had the last election stolen.  It has a Nobel Prize winner, María Corina Machado, as its titular head.  Trump seems content to let Interim President Delcy Rodriguez do the heavy lifting of steering the country back to credibility.  Her public statements distance her from “Washington’s Orders”, but her actions display begrudging cooperation.  Behind the scenes “carrots and sticks” are probably guiding the relationship. What happens next is going to be driven by internal forces, with the U.S. incentivizing a pro-West and free society outcome. Iran has a viable opposition inside and outside the country.  This includes the extensive Iranian diaspora residing in the United States and other countries.     The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) was formed in 1981.  It is a 460-member coalition “committed to a democratic, secular, and non-nuclear republic”. The NCRI’s mission is to “hold free elections within six months of the fall of the theocracy and to ensure a peaceful transition of power to elected representatives”. Just as Epic Fury started, Maryam Rajavi, the President-elect of the NCRI, announced the formation of a Provisional Government by the NCRI to transfer sovereignty to the people of Iran and establish a Democratic Republic based on a long established ten-point plan. The Ten-Point Plan was presented by Maryam Rajavi in December 2006 at a session of the Council of Europe. The NCRI’s plan for the future is, “a pluralistic republic based on the separation of religion and state, gender equality, the abolition of the death penalty, peace, coexistence, the elimination of double oppression against Iran’s ethnic and national minorities, and a non-nuclear Iran”. This well-organized effort, along with the possible symbolic national leader, Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, could quickly fill the void as the current regime is toppled. There truly is hope after the bombs…as long as Trump and his team learn from the past.

HOW ANTIETAM CHANGED EVERYTHING

[Part of Constituting America’s 90 Day Study - Days that Shaped America]

America’s bloodiest day was also the most geopolitically significant battle of the Civil War.

On September 17, 1862, twelve hours of battle along the Antietam Creek, near Sharpsburg, Maryland, resulted in 23,000 Union and Confederate dead or wounded. Its military outcome was General Robert E. Lee, and his Army of Northern Virginia, retreating back into Virginia. Its political outcome reshaped global politics and doomed the Southern cause.

The importance of Antietam begins with President Abraham Lincoln weighing how to characterize the Civil War to both domestic and international audiences. Lincoln choose to make “disunion” the issue instead of slavery. His priority was retaining the border states (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri) within the Union. [1]

The first casualties of the Civil War occurred on April 19, 1861 on the streets of Baltimore. The 6^th Massachusetts Regiment was attacked by pro-South demonstrators while they were changing trains. Sixteen dead soldiers and citizens validated Lincoln’s choice of making the Civil War about reunification. Eastern Maryland was heavily pro-slave. Had Maryland seceded, Washington, DC would have been an island within the Confederacy. This would have spelled disaster for the North.

To affirm the “war between the states” nature of the Civil War, Lincoln’s Secretary of State, William Seward, issued strict instructions to American envoys to avoid referencing slavery when discussing the Civil War. [2]

Explaining to foreign governments that the conflict was simply a “war between the states” had a downside. England and France were dependent on Southern cotton for their textile mills. “Moral equivalency” of the combatants allowed political judgements to be based on economic concerns. [3]

On April 27, 1861, Lincoln and Seward further complicated matters by announcing a blockade of Southern ports.  While this was vital to depriving the South of supplies, it forced European governments to determine whether to comply. There were well established international procedures for handling conflicts between nations and civil wars. Seward ignored these conventions, igniting fierce debate in foreign governments over what to do with America. [4]

England and France opted for neutrality, which officially recognized the blockade, but with no enforcement. Blockade runners gathered in Bermuda, and easily avoided the poorly organized Union naval forces, while conducting commerce with Southern ports. [5]

Matters got worse. On November 8, 1861, a Union naval warship stopped the Trent, a neutral British steamer travelling from Havana to London. Captain Charles Wilkes removed two Confederate Government Commissioners, James Mason and John Slidell, who were on their way for meetings with the British Government. [6]

The “Trent Affair” echoed the British stopping neutral American ships during the Napoleonic Wars. Those acts were the main reason for American initiating the War of 1812 with England.

British Prime Minister, Lord Henry Palmerston, issued an angry ultimatum to Lincoln demanding immediate release of the Commissioners. He also moved 11,000 British troops to Canada to reinforce its border with America. Lincoln backed down, releasing the Commissioners, stating “One war at a time”. [7]

While war with England was forestalled, economic issues were driving a wedge between the Lincoln Administration and Europe.

The 1861 harvest of Southern cotton had shipped just before war broke out. In 1862, the South’s cotton exports were disrupted by the war. Textile owners clamored for British intervention to force a negotiated peace.

In the early summer of 1862, bowing to political and economic pressure, Lord Palmerston drafted legislation to officially recognize the Confederate government and press for peace negotiations. [8]

During the Spring of 1862, Lincoln’s view of the Civil War was shifting. Union forces were attracting escaped slaves wherever they entered Southern territory. Union General’s welcomed the slaves as “contraband”, prizes of war similar to capturing the enemy’s weapons. This gave Lincoln a legal basis for establishing a policy for emancipating slaves in the areas of conflict.

Union victories had solidified the Border States into the North. Therefore, disunion was not as important a justification for military action. In fact, shedding blood solely for reunification seemed to be souring Northern support for the war.

Lincoln and Seward realized emancipating slaves could rekindle Northern support for the war, critical for winning the Congressional elections in November 1862. Emancipation would also place the conflict on firm moral grounds, ending European support for recognition and intervention. England had abolished slavery throughout its empire in 1833. It would not side with a slave nation, if the goal of war became emancipation. Lincoln embraced this geopolitical chess board, “Emancipation would weaken the rebels by drawing off their laborers, would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition”. [9]

On July 22, 1862, Lincoln called a Cabinet meeting to announce his intention to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. It was framed as an imperative of war, “by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion.” [10]

Seward raised concerns over the timing of the Proclamation. He felt recent Union defeats outside of the Confederate Capital of Richmond, Virginia might make its issuance look like an act of desperation, “our last shriek, on the retreat.” [11] It was decided to wait for a Northern victory so that the Emancipation could be issued from a position of strength.

Striving for a game-changing victory became the priority for both sides. The summer of 1862 witnessed a series of brilliant Confederate victories. British Prime Minister Palmerston agreed to finally hold a Cabinet meeting to formally decide on recognition and mediation. [12]

General Lee wished to tip the scales further by engineering a Confederate victory on northern soil. [13] Lee wanted a victory like the 1777 Battle of Saratoga that brought French recognition and aid to America. [14]

The race was on. General Stonewall Jackson annihilated General John Pope’s Army in the Second Battle of Manassas (August 28-30, 1862).  Lee saw his opportunity, consolidated his forces, and invaded Maryland on September 4, 1862.

After entering Frederick, Maryland, Lee divided his forces to eliminate the large Union garrison in Harpers Ferry, which was astride his supply lines. Lee planned to draw General George McClellan and his “Army of the Potomac” deep into western Maryland. Far from Union logistical support, McClellan’s forces could be destroyed, delivering a devastating blow to the North. [15]

A copy of Special Orders No. 191, which outlined Lee’s plans and troop movements, was lost by the Confederates, and found by a Union patrol outside of Frederick. [15] On reading the Order, McClellan, famous for his slow and ponderous actions in the field, sped his pursuit of Lee.

Now there was a deadly race for whether Lee and Jackson could neutralize Harpers Ferry and reunite before McClellan’s army pounced. This turned the siege of Harpers Ferry (September 12-15, 1862), the Battle of South Mountain (September 14, 1862), and Antietam (September 17, 1862) into the Civil War’s most important series of battles.

While Antietam was tactically a draw, heavy losses forced Lee and his army back into Virginia. This was enough for Lincoln to issue his Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, five days after the battle, on September 22, 1862. When news of the Confederate retreat reached England, support for recognition collapsed, extinguishing, “the last prospect of European intervention.” [17] News of the Emancipation Proclamation launched “Emancipation Meetings” throughout England. Support for a Union victory rippled through even pacifist Anti-Slavery groups who asserted abolition, “was possible only in a united America.” [18]

There were many more battles to be fought, but Europe’s alignment against the Confederacy sealed its fate. European nations flocked to embrace Lincoln and his Emancipation crusade. One vivid example was Czar Alexander II, who had emancipated Russia’s serfs, becoming a friend of Lincoln. In the fall of 1863, he sent Russian fleets to New York City and San Francisco to support the Union cause. [19]

Unifying European nations against the Confederacy, and ending slavery in the South, makes America’s bloodiest day one of the world’s major events.

REFERENCES

[1] McPherson, James, Battle Cry of Freedom (Oxford University Press, New York, 1988) pp. 311-312.

[2] Foreman, Amanda, A World on Fire; Britain’s Crucial Role in the American Civil War (Random House, New York, 2010) p.107.

[3] Op. cit., McPherson, p. 384.

[4] Op. cit., Foreman, page 80.

[5] Op. cit., McPherson, pages 380-381.

[6] ibid., pages 389-391.

[7] ibid.

[8] Op. cit., Foreman, page 293.

[9] Op. cit., McPherson, page 510.

[10] Carpenter, Francis, How the Emancipation Proclamation was Drafted; Political Recollections; Anthology - America; Great Crises in Our History Told by its Makers; Vol. VIII (Veterans of Foreign Wars, Chicago, 1925) pages 160-161.

[11] Op. cit., McPherson, page 505.

[12] Op. cit., Foreman, page 295.

[13] Op. cit., McPherson, page 555.

[14] McPherson, James, The Saratoga That Wasn’t: The Impact of Antietam Abroad, in This Mighty Scourge: Perspectives on the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), pages 65-77.

[15] Sears, Stephen W., Landscape Turned Red (Ticknor & Fields, New York, 1983) pages 66-67.

[16] Ibid., pages 112-113.

[17] Op. cit., Foreman, page 322.

[18] ibid., page 397.

[19] The Russian Navy Visits the United States (Naval Historical Foundation, Annapolis, 1969)

REPUBLICAN DEATH WISH - ELECTION 2018

Also published on Newsmax.

Campaign losses are more “suicides” than “homicides”.

The Republicans were poised to beat the odds during the 2018 “Mid-term” election, then everything went wrong. Trump’s last minute targeting of key Senate races recovered some, but not all, of the opportunities for Republican gains. The House was another matter.

History was on the Republicans’ side - Trump’s 2016 victory did not extend to House or Senate races. Democrats gained two Senate seats and six House seats. The absence of “coat tails” meant there was a dearth of “at risk” Congressional Republicans. At the same time, ten Democrat Senate incumbents, who had benefited from Obama’s 2012 trouncing of Romney, were potentially easy targets in states where Trump won handily.

Enter the Lemming Factor. 

It did not take long for media pundits and liberal pollsters to declare that Trump’s behavior and policies would generate a “Blue Wave” overwhelming Republicans in 2018. The prevailing wisdom was that dozens of Republican incumbents in Districts won by Hillary Clinton were going to be decimated. Easily spooked Republicans bought into this analysis. They overlooked the fact that the Republicans who won in 2016 Hillary Districts were the strongest, not the weakest going into 2018. 

Facts did not matter. On November 9, 2017, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee and an incumbent who consistently won re-election by over 60%, announced his retirement. Other Republican incumbents soon opted to leave. By early 2018, 26 safe Republicans, who had weathered Hillary’s best effort, had retired, creating potential for Democrat gains. Surprisingly, more than enough for Democrats to retake the House.

Republicans actually began losing the House in February 2017. Speaker Ryan and his leadership team determined their best course of action was to distance themselves from their new Republican President. 

Ryan missed the opportunity to coordinate with the Republican run Executive Branch to open and re-open investigations against Obama, Clinton, and all their minions. This could have included delivering the Comey Report on Hillary Clinton’s email abuses to a Grand Jury and inevitable indictments. Every witness who refused to testify under Obama could be forced to testify. Every document refused under Obama could be released. 

Aggressively exposing Obama/Clinton misdeeds 24/7 would have build the case for Republican government and crippled Democrat candidate recruitment and fundraising for 2018.

Ryan and his committee Chairs blew it, and paid the price. The Democrats caught their breath and rebounded from 2016. Unfortunately, starting in January 2018, House Democrats will show Republicans how total war is waged - 85 subpoenas are already being prepared. 

Trump also contributed to Congressional losses. He laid the ground work for defeat in March 2016 when his inner circle chose to ignore advice and offers for help from Reagan alumni. Trump and his team embraced Washington functionaries from Bush, Romney, and Never Trumper networks to plan and run his Presidential Transition. 

In 1981, the Reagan Transition and early White House relentlessly tracked down and removed every Carter operative and all Democrats who had careered into the bureaucracy. Every possible threat to Reagan’s revolution was marched out the door, stripped of their security clearances. By March 1981, Reagan had a clear path to greatness.

Thanks for bad, possibly malicious, advice Trump left large swaths of Obama/Clinton operatives in place, along with their security clearances and access. In the name of austerity, Trump’s slow, and in many cases nonexistent, insertion of loyalists into key Executive Branch positions left him open to being blindsided, undermined, and outmaneuvered. Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus, filled White House and Agency slots with “RINOgators” from among his Republican National Committee associates. This meant countless opportunities were lost to make Trump’s revolution a lasting operational reality beyond Executive Orders.

Trump’s final error was not declassifying, unredacting, and releasing all documents relating to the bogus Russian collusion probe. Starting months before the election, Nunes and a small band of Congressional Trump loyalists, along with conservative pundits, pleaded for Trump to release these documents. Exposing “sources and methods” was not an issue. The “Deep State” wanted to avoid embarrassment and convinced Trump to do the wrong thing. 

The documents, as characterized by Nunes and others who had actually read them, would have destroyed the Democrats, the Mueller Probe, and the liberal media. A pre-election release would have eviscerated the opposition and possibly saved the House.

The one hope America has is that House Democrats will excel at “jumping the shark” and overreach well beyond the Senate Democrats’ fraudulent attacks on Justice Kavanaugh.

Democrats’ desire for investigation not legislation will not bring down Trump. Pursuing their revenge fantasies will only prove they are not ready to rationally govern. 

November 3, 2020 will be another day of reckoning.

TODAY’S MASTERS OF DECEIT

Published in Newsmax

The thundering chorus of alarm over the neophytes who attempted clumsy networking pales in comparison with decades of Left-wing Democrat collusion with Russia.  The so-called “Progressives” in politics and the press aided and abetted America’s enemies for generations.  Their current cacophony of indignation is just another round of deceit. 

For a hundred years, these newly minted anti-Russians among Congress and the media were actively pro-Russia, pro-Bolshevik, and pro-Soviet Union, the Russia Putin served and was shaped by. 

Let’s review actual Russian collusion.

President Woodrow Wilson bungled the U.S. response to the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, paving the way for decades of terror and the Cold War.  One reason may be that his Russia Advisor was John Christian Bullitt.  Bullitt was a close associate of the famous communist author John Reed.  In fact, Bullitt married Louise Bryant, Reed’s widow.  He tried to convince Wilson to recognize Lenin‘s regime within months of the Bolshevik Revolution.  He later went onto to serve as Franklin Roosevelt’s (FDR) Ambassador to the Soviet Union.

In 1921, leading liberal Democrat thinkers met with Lenin in Moscow to learn about his New Economic Policy and assess its adaptability for America.  This group went on to be the highly feted “Brain Trust” that formed FDR’s inner policy circle and launched the New Deal.  One of Roosevelt’s first acts was to open diplomatic relations with the USSR and name Bullitt as the first U.S. Ambassador.

Ambassador Joseph Davies followed Bullitt in Moscow.  He did everything he could to cover-up Stalin’s great purges and the gulags.  He is best known for his official declaration, “Communism holds no serious threat to the United States.”  His book and subsequent movie “Mission to Moscow” remains the purest example of Stalin worship.  He ended his diplomatic career as an advisor to Truman at the Potsdam Conference, which sealed the fate of Eastern Europe within the Soviet “sphere of influence”.

Davies’ pro-Stalin efforts were supported by Alger Hiss.  Starting in 1936, Hiss advised Cordell Hull, FDR’s Secretary of State, and rose in influence until he was FDR’s key Russian advisor at the Yalta Conference.  The Yalta Conference was noteworthy for the tilt of FDR toward Stalin and away from Churchill.  In 1948, Hiss was unmasked as a Soviet Agent.  To this day, many liberals defend Hiss and deny the mountain of evidence against him.

President Truman is idolized as the President who stood-up to Communism.  Yet his team mishandled the rise of Mao and the Communists in China, losing China in 1949.  Worse, they deprived South Korea of tanks and artillery in the hopes of not “provoking” North Korea.  On June 25, 1950, North Korea invaded anyway.  The lack of tanks and artillery allowed Chinese and Russian backed North Korean forces to capture Seoul, the Capital of South Korea, in three days.  In less than two months North Korea nearly drove anticommunist forces off the Korean Peninsula and into the sea at Pusan.

The exposure of Hiss was the first of many actions taken by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC).  Truman denounced it.  Liberals to this day assert HUAC ushered in the darkest days of America and dismiss its investigations as witch hunts. HUAC was abolished in 1975, after the Democrat post-Watergate landslide. 

Secret Soviet intelligence documents, known as the Venona Papers, surfaced in the 1990s.  In 2000, former Intelligence Committee investigator, Herb Romerstein, published the translated papers, which revealed Soviet agents in the State Department and Hollywood (1943-1980), vindicating HUAC’s work.

The Venona Papers, and other intelligence disclosures, ultimately proved Russian collusion with the “New Left” in the 1960s and with John Kerry’s antiwar activities in the 1970s. 

Defectors and additional documents also outlined how the unilateral Cold War capitulations of the Carter Administration were guided by an array of Russian agents. In particular, the National Security staff of Zbigniew Brzezinski was known for its overly cozy interactions with America’s foes.  This social and professional collusion led to ten significant security breaches including exposing Trigon, America’s highest placed agent in the Kremlin.

Reagan’s White House staff and Bill Casey’s newly invigorated CIA eradicated the Russian and Cuban agents, and their associated “agents of influence”. This cleared the way for America to finally go on the offensive and destroy the Soviet Empire.

Today’s apocalyptic rhetoric about Trump and the Russians takes Left-wing hypocrisy into yet another round of deceit.

Americans should call for a day of reckoning for Trump’s holier than thou detractors.

[Scot Faulkner led the legislative team for Rep. John Ashbrook (R-OH), ranking Member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence.  He served as the Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives.  He also served on the White House Staff, and in Executive Appointments, during the Reagan Administration.

Currently, Faulkner helps private corporations by flattening organizations; achieving dramatic and sustainable cost reductions while improving operational and service excellence.]

TRUMPING THE WORLD

Interview Published in https://www.mscnewswire.co.nz/component/k2/item/4043-urgently-needed-in-foreign-policy-in-trump-era-a-new-way-of-thinking-acting-plus-a-study-of-sun-tzu.html  #TRUMPING

The newly installed Trump Administration continues to catch New Zealand officialdom by surprise. So MSC Newswire asked Washington insider Scot Faulkner what Wellington’s response should in fact be? Mr. Faulkner was elected the first Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives. His reforms became a model for the operation of national parliaments around the world.

The New Zealand Foreign Ministry has set up a special focus group solely for the purpose of identifying early warning of new policies promulgated by President Trump, the ones which will have an impact on this country. Can you short circuit this by helpfully forecasting any of these pending surprise policies?

The New Zealand Foreign Ministry’s Trump Task Force will only be of value if it discards long held assumptions and embrace a totally new way of thinking and acting. Trying to predict Trump through traditional means, such as monitoring after-the-fact media, is like using Ouija boards, tarot cards, and horoscopes.

The Ministry’s primary objective should be to move at “Trump speed” and navigate in Trump’s world. Non traditional sources, non traditional methods will be keys to success. Thinking like a visionary risk-taking entrepreneur instead of a politician is the first step into this new reality.

Trump is unique. No one like him has ever been the President of the United States. While a few Presidents had business experience, their main credentials were either the military or government. America usually faced political or military crises. The 2007-2008 economic collapse convinced most Americans that something radical was necessary. So they rallied around a businessman who was known to most as a reality television star. As Trump stated, “everyone else has failed you – what do you have to lose? Try me.”

Trump’s unique background means unique thought patterns and processes. President Trump gets his ideas, news, and validation from places never before involved in governing. He is fearless, non linear. He embraces chaos, acts on intuition, moves quickly, and uses surprise as a strategic weapon. Sometimes only he knows the ultimate objective. He is a student of military history, especially Sun Tzu. That is what gave him the winning edge in business, the Republican primaries, and the 2016 general election.

Trump’s new Administration is already being tested by China, Russia, and a variety of other nations. President Trump’s responses will indicate many things: how fast he responds, how he responds, how he views the challenge and the challenger, how he frames the challenge within his existing world view, how willing is he to vary from stated positions to address a unique situation, how willing is he to escalate, whose advice does he value, who he collaborates with, and who, how, and what does he communicate regarding the challenge to Congress, the American public, and other nations.

New Zealand needs to understand that the next four to eight years has a very different global player. Trump’s approach will be very personal, intimate, intuitive, immediate, chaotic, and against all conventional wisdom, very successful.

All the indications are that the New Zealand diplomatic apparatus in New York and Washington was wrong footed by the Trump ascendancy. This led to falling in line with the Obama era last moment positioning of New Zealand as co-endorser of the UN anti-Israel resolution. Does New Zealand need to backtrack here?

New Zealand should always be wary of being pulled into American politics. Obama’s last minute swipe at Israel during his waning days as President should have been avoided at all costs. Obama’s behind the scenes orchestration of the resolution, which was being delayed until the new Administration, was ill-advised and dilatory. It undermined decades of America being a positive force in the region.

President Trump is a great friend of Israel. He and his team believe that, historically, enemies of America have funded the radical elements of the Palestinian cause.

Trump is committed, heart & soul, to destroying radical Islam and reining-in Iran. His priority is working with those nations that share his view. He sees Israel, and the moderate Arab governments, like Egypt and Jordan, as allies in eradicating ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and their regional and tribal affiliates throughout the Arab world, Asia, and Africa.
Trump and his foreign policy team fundamentally differ from the Neo-conservatives who surrounded President George W. Bush. They adhere more to the Reagan-Thatcher/John-Paul II approach of destroying tyranny, but not trying to second guess centuries of local custom through nation building. America’s role is to inspire, not intervene, in a nation’s journey toward a freer society.
Israeli settlements are far more complex than the media portrays. Palestinian contractors and workers build Israeli settlements. West Bank unemployment soars whenever Israel slows or suspends new settlements. The chasm between peaceful, free, and democratic Israel and violent, oppressive, Islamic failed states in the region is stark. Land for Peace has been a chimera for Israel. De-radicalizing Palestinian leaders and their movement would go further in creating lasting peace than continuing to place the onus on Israel.

The Anti-Israel Resolution validated Trump’s view that the United Nations is currently there to promote radical anti-Western policies while wasting vast sums of money. It further proves his wisdom of pursuing America’s interests through bilateral, not multilateral, arrangements.

New Zealand has supported in spirit the US-EU trade embargo against Russia called up by President Obama. Is there a defined timetable to conclude this embargo?

There is no defined timetable for ending or modifying the trade embargo against Russia.

President Trump and his inner circle have a non-ideological practical “America first” world view. It harkens back to the 17th/18th Centuries. During that era, Western nations united to stop the expansion of the Ottoman Empire then competed, sometimes violently, to dominate world trade.

President Trump wants to build relationships with Russia and China for ridding the world of rogue players – radical Islam, Iran, and North Korea. This is why he picked Rex Tillerson, who has strong relationships with Russia as his Secretary of State, and Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, who is friends with President Xi Jinping, as Ambassador to China. This is also why Trump picked a skilled fighter, James Mattis, as his Secretary of Defense.

Trump’s trade and business team is equally ready to help America win in world commerce. Wilbur Ross, Steve Mnuckin, and Robert Lighthizer will aggressively negotiate favorable trade agreements and rebuild U.S. competitiveness.

Russia remains problematic as its adventurism in Ukraine and intimidation of the Baltic States complicates Trump’s desire to be “frenemies”. Tillerson will be challenged to craft the right mix of incentives and punishments to refocus Russo-American relations. The current US-EU trade embargo will be assessed within this context.

The Transpacific Partnership Agreement signed in Auckland last year was No 1 on President Trump’s hit list. Looking at the longer term where do you see the advantages/disadvantages in this?

President Trump is all about building one-on-one personal relationships with world leaders. Bi-lateral relationships were his strong suit in business and will serve him well as President. They allow him more flexibility and agility. He has little interest in multi-lateral agreements or entities.

This is why TPP was in his cross hairs as a candidate and now as President. New Zealand and other TPP nations need to offer their best “value proposition” for trade relationships that will benefit the U.S. as much as themselves. These are the kinds of agreements that will get Trump’s attention and become his priority.

Trump prides himself on the foreign investments in America he has facilitated or promoted. He wants American companies to “come home” to America, and foreign companies to settle in America. Trump’s goal is to bring the best of the world to America to rebuild infrastructure and generate lasting employment opportunities. There is a new world of opportunity for New Zealand investment and partnering in America.

Given the available evidence it is hard not to conclude that officials here have only a threadbare understanding of what is going on in the relevant circles of United States policymaking. Where should they be looking? Who should they be talking to now?

Trump’s tweets remain the best original source. Trump won the nomination and the general election by going directly to the public. Over 50 million Americans follow Trump on Twitter and Facebook. The Washington-New York media have become completely irrelevant to the Trump Administration and to Trump’s America.

President Trump has revolutionized the way policy is created, promoted, and implemented. The establishments within the Federal Government, Congress, media, academia, and policy forums, still do not have a clue about what is happening before their eyes.

America’s post-Cold War drift through four failed Presidents has come to an end.

Reagan won the Cold War by using skills he developed in movies and television to command the world stage. Those skills destroyed the Soviet Empire, relaunched the U.S. economy, and redefined the role of government. Trump is using his business and reality television skills to command the world stage for himself and the United States. Like Reagan, Trump is seeking to defeat tyranny, in this case radical Islam, relaunch the U.S. economy, and not just redefine, but completely reinvent government. The establishment dismissed Reagan until he succeeded. The establishment is dismissing Trump, and will be just as embarrassed should he succeed.

Conservative talk radio speaks for Trump and puts his actions and tweets into context. They aggressively expose the liberal media and the Democrats when they promote fake news and conspiracies about Trump. Trump watches Fox news, listens & calls into conservative talk radio, and avidly follows their social media posts. Each validates the other. The most articulate and insightful conservative commentators are Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levine, and Chris Plante. Washington-based WMAL radio hosts all three.

OF BRICS & DRAGONS

This article was published on the History News Network

http://hnn.us/articles/how-game-thrones-mirrors-modern-geopolitics

The Season Three finale of Game of Thrones coincided with my recent meetings in China. There is more in common than first meets the eye.

Game of Thrones is HBO’s outstanding fantasy drama about how royal families on the continent of Westeros intrigue against and slaughter each other. At the end of Season Three the key combatants remain oblivious to rising outside threats. The White Walkers, or basically “ice zombies”, are massing in the icy north looking to expand their feeding territory. Far to the south, across the Narrow Sea, Daenerys Targaryen is forming a massive army and building a cadre of capable advisors. She is waiting for the day her three dragons are large enough to lead her campaign to invade Westeros and reclaim the “Iron Throne”. A multi-year period of mild weather, the “long summer”, is about to give way to an equally long and devastating winter. Only a few whisper, “winter is coming”, and even less are preparing.

In the “real” world, America’s leaders intrigue against and politically slaughter each other. Myopia reigns supreme inside the Capital’s Beltway. Daily micro-battles over tactical issues are echoed in Lilliputian debates among hyperpartisan pundits. Like their Westeros counterparts, America’s political, economic, and media elite are oblivious to rising outside threats. This is not about terrorists, it is about BRICS.

BRICS are five major emerging economies that formed a cooperation pact in 2011: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. With the exception of Russia, BRICS are all developing or recently industrialized countries. Their common attribute is they all have large, fast-growing economies. This is allowing them growing influence on regional and global affairs. As of 2013, the five BRICS countries represent almost 3 billion people, with a combined nominal GDP of $14.8 trillion, and an estimated $4 trillion in combined foreign reserves.

BRICS are not always in agreement. Notably, China and India have serious border and water rights disputes. However, they collectively represent a major economic and trade force in the world. In many ways they are like the mercantile powers of the 17th Century. At that time, England and the Netherlands established global trading outposts, developed their merchant infrastructure, and built economic capabilities that soon encompassed the world. While the Netherlands was content to dominant trade, England leveraged its mercantilism to become the dominant strategic power for over three hundred years.

BRICS are following in these historic footsteps. China is methodically locking up strategic minerals and port facilities throughout Africa. China already holds the rights to most of Afghanistan’s mineral resources. It is fully content to have American coin and blood provide the security for Chinese miners. President Xi Jinping’s recent tour of the Americas strengthened his country’s presence in America’s “backyard”. His tour was topped off by Nicaragua awarding a Chinese company a 100-year concession to build an alternative to the Panama Canal. This will have profound geopolitical ramifications. China is also preparing to assert its highly expansive version of rights to islands and territorial waters throughout the Pacific rim.

BRICS strategically flexing their collective new muscles starkly contrasts with America’s nonexistent global economic strategy. It did not have to be this way.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had a detailed strategic plan. His plan was to eradicate the Soviet Empire, end the threat of global Communism, and free millions of people from bondage. He masterfully and methodically implemented his plan succeeding beyond even his inner circle’s expectations. It was a combination of overt and covert active measures, coordinated with Britain’s Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II. Together, they formed a “big three” that was far more globally effective and positive than World War II’s FDR, Churchill, and Stalin.

The problem was that so much planning and execution went into ending global Communism, little effort was spent on what happened next. For all the rhetoric about a “new world order” after the fall of the Berlin Wall, precious little actually occurred. After World War II the United Nations and countless strategic meetings, such as the Bretton Woods Conference, reshaped the world. America’s Marshall Plan in Europe and MacArthur’s counter part in Japan rebuilt ravaged parts of the globe, but also established viable markets for U.S. goods.

Presidents Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and now Obama have been content to let America’s economy drift through the “peace dividend” and the information revolution without a strategic game plan. 9-11 opened a large rabbit hole where Bush 43 and his NeoCons squandered coin and blood on ill-advised, ill-conceived, and poorly realized foreign adventures. Today America is over extended politically, militarily, and financially. At home, our strategic drift since the fall of the Berlin Wall has led to hyperpartisan bickering over increasingly minute matters. The rise of the TheoCons within the Republican Party have reopened debates about science and reason that were resolved centuries ago, further diverting attention from strategic global issues.

Now in 2013, America is like Westeros, every day introduces new micro-conspiracies that diminish and divert attention from the real issues. America’s role in the world and its future as an economic power are drowned out by politicians and pundits fixated on whether Paula Dean should have a Food Network show. In the meantime, the BRICS’ “little dragons” and “ice zombies” are growing in strength. Washington politicians would learn more from following HBO fantasy dramas than Cable “news” talk shows.

[Scot Faulkner served as Chief Administrative Officer for the U.S. House of Representatives. Spent the month of June in China as advisor to the International Scholar Laureate Program. http://citizenoversight.blogspot.com/ ]

Behind the Curve - Part 1

Our modern world obsesses on the 24-36 hour news cycle. Soundbites and factoids are kings. While this makes for exciting entertainment, it diminishes any sense of perspective or reflection. The result is a fixation on what is considered urgent instead of what is really important.

We are in the midst of two major historic waves. One began in 1914, the other in the 1970s (to be discussed in a future blog). Historians a hundred years from now will look back at these waves with some perspective. Unfortunately, most commentators and political leaders are completely missing these waves - to the detriment of our future.

World War I erased four great dynasties and empires from the map. A framework for governance (most would say domination) that stretched back over four hundred years was torn apart during a four-year orgy of bloodshed. The casualties were: the Austrian Empire under the Habsburgs (1452-1918), Germany under the Habsburgs (1438-1918), Russia under the Czars (1547-1917), and the Ottoman Empire (1299-1923). We are still grappling with the power vacuum left by their demise.

World War II was triggered by the dictatorships that arose to fill the gaps left in Austria, Germany and Russia (Nazism and Communism). This, in turn, weakened two additional European powers and led to a global decolonization, England (1538-1965), and France (1605-1962). The Cold War (1945-1989) was fought mainly because the Communist dictators of Russia (then known as the Soviet Union or USSR) wanted to control strategic resources and lines of communication among these newly independent states in order to achieve world domination. The Soviet-led Warsaw Pact faced-off against the US-led NATO alliance over control of the lands occupied by the former German and Austrian empires.

The fundamental flaws in communism and totalitarianism won democracy and independence for most of Central and Eastern Europe. However, a totalitarian Russia still threatens its neighbors and is showing a renewed thirst for global dominance.

The fall of the Ottoman Empire unleashed forces that have only recently become a factor on the world stage. The winning powers of World War I established dominance over the former Ottoman lands. Unfortunately, there were more cartographers than anthropologists in the room when the Middle East map was drawn. Just like with the imperial division of Africa in the 19th Century, the post World War I shaping of colonies and protectorates left bitter tribal and sectarian rivals within artificial borders. The result was a unleashing of violence and internal strife that plague the Middle East to this day.

Colonialism only occasionally incubates viable leaders. Therefore, the delayed independence for the nations of the Middle East became rich soil for the growth of radical Islam and its extremist proponents. Deep-seated hatreds for Jews and western colonial administrations fermented ill-fated Arab embraces of first Nazism and then Communism. The West’s love of Middle East petroleum bridged these ideological gaps with commerce, but the animosity lingers.

Historical waves, like tsunamis, cannot readily be seen until they break upon an unsuspecting shore. The current challenges with Russia and the Middle East are part of this historic pattern. This means there are no quick fixes, and that most “current wisdom” solutions are flawed because few see things from a long-term perspective.

The End of the Reagan Era

Russian tanks pour into a Central-Asian nation. An American President seems disturbingly clueless and passive, unwilling to disrupt the illusion of warm relations. The American economy is sagging and gasping for gasoline. Federal government spending is out of control with daily reminders of the incompetence of its officials.

Welcome to December 1979. That month marked the nadir of America in the world. The Soviet Union was resurgent across the globe, taking full advantage of President Carter’s ineptitude and rosy-eyed worldview. The oil shocks of the mid-1970s were reaping a bitter harvest as the Administration’s fragmentary energy policy stalled in Congress. The US economy was in a steep downward spiral as inflation and jobless rates climbed.

Does this sound familiar? August 2008 is looking a lot like December 1979. Russian tanks are now pouring into Georgia, a sovereign, pro-West, democracy. This is actually worse than the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan as that action was against a Soviet-backed puppet state.

The decline of America in the 1970s was reversed when Ronald Reagan took office in January 1981. The historic rise of Reagan and conservatism took sixteen years from the time Barry Goldwater won the Republican nomination in 1964 to the great election landslide of 1980. America has since enjoyed twenty-eight years of general economic expansion, world dominance, and the growth of freedom.

It has taken less than eight years for President George W. Bush, and his acolytes, to systematically unravel and dismantle this forty-four year conservative trajectory. It is a tragic legacy for America and the world. No one should ever forget or forgive.