war and diplomacy

I have an extremely low regard for Secretary of State Tillerson and anger at his destructive activities at the State Department. But a stupid and dangerous statement he made last week is a sentiment shared by all too many people, including many military officers.

In a television interview, Tillerson said that “those diplomatic efforts [with North Korea] will continue until the first bomb drops.”

I hope not. If we do get into direct combat with North Korea, I trust that we will explore every possible diplomatic channel until we find ways of ending the conflict. Diplomacy is strong when backed by the threat of force, but diplomacy is also necessary to conclude the use of force.

I won't quote Clausewitz on war's intimate connection to political goals, nor will I drag up all the other similar quotes by various military figures over the year. Just remember that a nation cannot wisely end diplomacy once fighting starts.

Trump's Iran decision

As I predicted, the president chose a kind of middle path between withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal and simply certifying Iranian compliance, as other signatories and several cabinet officials preferred. The decision is an excellent example of bureaucratic politics, where differing officials have to compromise.

President Trump had strongly criticized JCPOA as a candidate and was angry that he had to report to Congress every 90 days on Iranian compliance. He said he didn't want to do that, but the facts demanded certification. His advisors looked for a way to remove that uncomfortable action while still preserving the benefits of the limits on Iran. A new report argues that UN Amb, Haley played a key role in fashioning a strong case against the agreement.

Trump's announcement was a powerful indictment of Iran's behavior over the years, but a very weak list of complaints about Iranian noncompliance. Basically he argued that Iran was violating the "spirit" of the deal since he couldn't prove violations of the terms of the deal. He was adopting a policy of linkage, saying US policy would be based on the full range of Iranian behavior even if they complied with the nuclear aspects.

What he did, however, does not seem to be part of a strategy to get Iran to change its behavior or to agree to changes in the deal. By not certifying compliance, he triggered a 60-day window for Congress to snap back the sanctions lifted under JCPOA. But he did not ask Congress to lift those sanctions. Instead, he seems to favor congressional amendments to the law requiring reports [INARA, PL 114-17] that would enable him to certify Iran was not complying with these new and additional behaviors. Senators Corker and Cotton announced a bill like that. And he threatened to withdraw completely from the deal if Congress fails to pass such amendments.

In other words, Trump is demanding that Congress amend its own law instead of ordering his secretary of state [or others] to negotiate such changes with the signatories. How is that supposed to work?

By the way, the administration also announced sanctions against Iran's Revolutionary Guards but did not put that organization on the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations [FTO]. CRS and State Dept have explanations of the differences.

"Could be worse" is still not very reassuring.

truth is in details

As a political scientist who also researches and writes history, I am more comfortable with case studies and biographies than Grand Theme works that present overarching explanations of American foreign policy or the changing balance of power. I look for truth in the details of particular events -- why the United States went to war with Spain in 1898, how Franklin Roosevelt maneuvered America into the conflict with Nazi Germany, why Harry Truman agreed to the airlift during the Berlin blockade, how we narrowly avoided nuclear war in the 1962 Cuba crisis, and so forth into recent times. My studies have also found numerous times when what presidents said was at least in part in conflict with what important elements of the government were doing, so I don't believe we can look to words alone to understand policy.

Sometimes I worry, however, that I'm missing important things by this approach. I know there may be megatrends that are more significant than the periodic oscillations of U.S. policymakers. Climate change is one such trend, along with growing inequality in America. I'm discouraged by the hyperpartisanship and dysfunction in Congress, but I reassure myself by remembering when things were better, and thus hope they can improve. To add to my concerns is this report on a conference of political scientists on this very topic -- big changes like distrust of the government and even each other. These trends are ominous, and perhaps more important than the foreign policy crises I normally follow.

Trump and Kaiser Wilhelm II

There's another comparison involving German leaders and the current U.S. president that doesn't violate Godwin's Law: Trump is a lot like Kaiser Wilhelm II, who took his country into Africa, started a no-win naval race with Britain, and then gave a blank check to Austria-Hungary that pulled Europe into the disaster of World War I. Harvard's Steve Walt makes the comparison at FP today. You heard it here from me last February.

what if...

It has now been 20 days, just short of 3 weeks, since Hurricane Maria devastated Puerto Rico. Relief and recovery efforts were slow to begin and still are far from restorating  basic human services.

Axios has some data:

• More than 19,000 federal civilian personnel and military service members, including more than 1,395 FEMA personnel, are on the ground in PR and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
• Electricity: 15% of the island has power, and roughly 28% of cell towers have been restored.
• Food: Approximately 77% of grocery stores are open, up from 65% Friday.
• Gas: Roughly 78% of retail gas stations are operational.
• Transportation: Only 392 miles of Puerto Rico's 5,073 miles of roads are open. All airports and federally maintained ports are open or open with restrictions.
• Water and waste: Approximately 56.8% of Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) customers have potable water, and additional water is being provided by bottled and bulk water. 60% of waste water treatment plants are working on generator power.
• Medical care: All hospitals (67) are open and operating, but only 25 are working with electricity. The others remain on backup power systems, and most are without air conditioning. 96% of Dialysis Centers are open, but several are still running on generators.

About 3.5 million people were living on the island when the hurricane hit -- about as many people as live in Connecticut, and somewhat more than live in Iowa.

What if 85% of the people in Connecticut were still out of power; what if 93% of Iowa's roads were blocked; what if over 40% of the people of either state had no potable water? If those were the conditions in either state on day two after the storm, I believe that the Federal Government would have mobilized even more people, immediately, and wouldn't have slacked off until the job was done. I believe the media would have treated it as a human catastrophe and would have continued massive coverage of the situation. But no; Puerto Rico is an island in a big ocean, and there are tweets and controversies to capture our attention. Shame!