I have a short piece up at Inkstick Media. It’s short enough that I won’t quote it here, except to say that I have found the claims that the Trump administration killed Qassem Soleimani to “re-establish deterrence” annoying in multiple dimensions.
Besides, Inkstick is a new enterprise, trying to make this stuff more understandable, and I support that goal. If you like what I write here, you’ll probably like Inkstick. Go ahead, give them some clicks!
OzarkHillbilly
A very succinct read with language even a Republican can understand. Too bad they won’t read it. ;-)
H.E.Wolf
Thanks for the link, and for writing the article. Much appreciated.
With Martin Luther King, Jr. Day coming up next Monday, it’s timely to remember his opposition to violent conflict and to the warmongers of his day.
catclub
Killing the Generals of the opposing side is the recommended way to restart negotiations from a state of mutual trust.
Unilaterally breaking the previous agreement is next on the list.
MattF
I guess ‘deterrence’ is code for ‘bring back 1954’. Otherwise it would just be the usual run of threats and bullying.
catclub
I read the article and some others at Inkstick. They are short, but I felt they were too
much only introductory paragraphs for a longer article.
randy khan
The idea that “deterrence” sounds manly probably is the most obvious motivation for the current bunch, and particularly Trump, who obviously is very concerned about looking tough and strong. People with confidence in their manliness (*cough* Obama *cough*) don’t need to engage in this kind of display.
Frank McCormick
Sounds like an old opinion piece on the invasion of Iraq where it was suggested that we “go over there, grab them by them by the neck, and shake them up” to keep the fear of the USA in them.
[I forget which NYT writer said it (Friedman?) and a quick Google search turned up no relevant results.]
Frankensteinbeck
Most Republicans view the world in terms of bullying: Who is hitting who. It’s barely even an ideology, because they don’t understand that the world could work any other way. Intimidation and deterrence are synonyms to them. Trump, as always, is the apotheosis of Republicanism. He can’t even grasp the idea of a mutual win with friends
Cheryl Rofer
@Frank McCormick: You may be thinking of Michael Ledeen’s
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ledeen
JCJ
@Frank McCormick:
I believe Friedman’s elegant terminology was “suck on this”
wvng
Well done, Cheryl.
Peale
@randy khan: Deterrence also makes us feel essential for the proper political ordering of the world. Like if we weren’t there and let events unfold on their own, all the bad things would happen. Only bad things would happen if we weren’t there doing something. Now, that the bad things have been properly deterred, we can go back to sitting on our benign throne and everyone can be thankful for us. Or we think they should be thankful, but really, gratitude isn’t all that necessary. We offer self-congratulatory messages that more than enough make up for our general lack of acclaim.
bemused
@Frankensteinbeck:
Exactly. They are the bullies in the sandbox kicking sand in the other kid’s faces.
Kent
@Frank McCormick:
Yes it was Friedman. This was the quote on the Charlie Rose show. Doesn’t age well does it?
JPL
Cheryl, That was excellent and so true. We’ve had sanctions in Iran for forty years and they haven’t acted like a deterrent either.
BTW and OT Steyer hits trump where it hurts the most
host2.advertisinganalyticsllc.com/admo/#/view/1746122
hitless
@Kent:
There’s a lot to criticize there, but ignoring all ethical and moral issues, just in terms of this guy being a paid analyst of the middle east this is atrocious. The simplism of implying those countries are monolithic and that “hitting” one will result in good things is staggering.
The Moar You Know
That ship done sailed.
Wait until America figures out that, with one election, we’ve permanently blown our former international status as “world leaders” forever.
Because we have, and that’s going to have a lot of blowback with our relations with other nations, and will cause much more domestically if the rubes ever figure it out.
I’m sure someone with a little brains can figure out a way to pre-emptively blame Obama for it, and will.
catclub
@JPL: Good ad. Of course, any other Democrat should be saying the same things. I would just add: “And I actually made my billions, I didn’t have Daddy give me my first $200M on the way to… maaaaaybe $350 million”
Patricia Kayden
catclub
And Friedman was probably far better informed (at some time), on the ground, about the Middle East than the average Sunday gasbag opinionator. He was an actual reporter in the middle east.
Hoodie
@JPL: What do that think they are deterring? Assassinating an Iranian general who happens to be openly visiting Iraq at most deters Iranian generals from openly traveling to Iraq. No, this is just another installment of “if we kill enough of the bad guys, everything will be solved.”
JPL
@Hoodie: We’ve interfered in Iran since the fifties and now it’s time to step back, cuz we aren’t helping.
Omnes Omnibus
@Frank McCormick: Yep, Friedman.
Hortense
I wish you or Adam Silverman would explain the whole “the President can de-classify whatever he wants, whenever he wants” thing. Does it then become public knowledge that anyone can use for any purpose?
Say, for example, he’s briefed about a Special Forces plan to take out terrorists and then, because he’s a blabbermouth, he tells his golfing buddies and other people who don’t have security clearances. Javanka share it with their circle of sycophants, telling them all the details as long as they promise not to say a WORD to ANYBODY about what’s about to go down. Their friends tell their friends in STRICTEST CONFIDENCE. Is it like public information at that point, shareable with anyone for any reason?
Lots of people know all about it, and one of them who is not a foreign agent, but who maybe just needs money, sells that information to someone who doesn’t have our best interests at heart. They get six million rubles and the Special Forces walk into an ambush.
I think that’s what happened with the raid on Yakla. From Wikipedia:
“The approval of the Yakla raid did not follow the rigorous procedure used during the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, which involved a Situation Room meeting that detailed the operational plan, operational goals, a risk assessment (to both U.S. personnel and civilians), and a legal assessment of the operation. Instead, the raid was approved over dinner conversations between Trump, his son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner, his special adviser Steve Bannon, and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.”
Is there any criminality anywhere along the line? I know classified information can’t be shared like that, and certainly can’t be sold, but this was declassified from the get-go by Trump. Yes, of course it’s wrong, and an 11-year old boy was murdered and Chief Petty Officer William Owens died, but Trump had his two scoops of ice cream on a great chocolate cake, so.
Jay
On the bright side,
sdhays
@Jay: Windows are very easy to fall out of in Russia…
JPL
@Jay: Don’t lean against the windows if you are in windows. Obviously the are faulty since that happens a lot.
Spanky
@Jay: I guess he made the classic mistake of asking questions about the wrong sort of people. .
dnfree
Excellent point on deterrence vs escalation.
Jay
It probably won’t go anywhere, but as Fuck LBJ said, “make them deny it”.
Spanky
@Spanky: And pity he landed on the only recently shoveled section of pavement to be found in mid-winter Moscow.
Spanky
@Jay: See new post up above.
Jay
Cheryl Rofer
@Hortense: The often-made statement that the President has the right to declassify anything he wants is incorrect in a number of ways.
First, the President is the top classification authority. He has an authority by virtue of his office, but his rights are the same as any of ours.
Next, if the President feels that some information should be declassified, there is a procedure for that. He could have the civil servants who deal with classification put the appropriate papers together and sign them with his Sharpie, but, as far as anyone can tell, he doesn’t do this.
When he just blabs out classified information to Russians or talks about it in the dining room at Mar-a-Lago, he’s probably not doing anything criminal, just ill-advised. That information, then, is not declassified, but it is available to the news media, us, and anyone else who doesn’t have a security clearance.
People who have clearances but not a need to know this information are in a difficult spot. They have to keep it out of their work computers and can’t discuss it. I’ll bet that classification officers are letting a lot of this go by, because the Blabbermouth-in-Chief has spread so much of it around. But that degrades the system in general.
catclub
I believe that many of the Clinton emails that were criticized after the fact for containing classified information were just this type. Discussing the newspaper report on something that had been classified.
MaryLou
Cheryl, I enjoyed your article, but found the site overall almost unreadable. The blaring graphics and huge headlines are confusing, not enlightening. Tell the graphics designers that in online presentation, less is more.
Jay
@Cheryl Rofer,
I would not be the least bit surprised if the mess and the bureaucracy that is the US Classification System, is being “vindictivly used” by Trumpista’s and others, inside the IC.
Cheryl Rofer
@catclub: I think this was part of it, but also some of what was in the Clinton emails was unclassified when they were written, and classified later.
The classification system is a mess, and I see no easy way to fix it.
Cheryl Rofer
@MaryLou: Noted.
Cheryl Rofer
@Jay: It certainly could be.
Jay
@catclub:
a bunch were “retroactively” classified. Basically, after the information was “already out there” and in the public realm, the “source documents” and communications referencing them, were then “classified”.
So as a result, archived documents and communications, not marked classified or handled as classified on the servers, were found because at the time they were received and archived, they were not classified.
If memory serves me right, there were a half dozen or so, actual classified documents, that were classified at the time, that were mishandled, out of tens of thousands.
Betty Cracker
@Cheryl Rofer: FWIW, I like the site layout and graphics.
Cheryl Rofer
@Betty Cracker: Also noted!
randy khan
@Cheryl Rofer:
To go back to the original example, and as I understand it, Trump talking to people who are cleared about something should give them permitted access even if they weren’t originally supposed to have it, but the information itself remains classified, so the people he told can’t tell people who aren’t cleared or who don’t have need to know. (I’m sure that works *extremely well* with Kushner and Ivanka.)
Is that a fair way to state it?
Cheryl Rofer
@randy khan: I think that’s how it’s been interpreted, and, never having dealt with the President’s authorities on classified material, I can’t say it’s wrong.
My understandings of classified material say that
Beyond the legalities, the point is that national security information is classified for a reason. Trump seems to be unaware of that and uses classified information in the same way he uses many other things: for his ego gratification or to gain favors. That’s the danger.
Brachiator
@Cheryl Rofer:
I enjoyed your commentary on deterrence. Brief and to the point.
I hear Trump defenders note that since he is president, he can declassify anything he wants. They focus on his authority and ignore the question of whether his behavior might be reckless.
Mike in Pasadena
@JPL: Thanks for the link. Excellent ad. That’s what this election has to be about – who can beat that con man and crook Trump. It is not about medicare for all, free college/student loans, or anybody’s big plans. It is about defeating the biggest fraud ever to sit in the oval office.
debbie
Finally, something I can read and understand without furrowing my brow. Thanks, and site has been bookmarked!
(I don’t find the design as troubling as the poster above, though I wish that flyout thing up top didn’t fly out so much and with so little provocation.)
lexilis
The graphic design of that site is really, really terrible. The front page is a visual assault. The titles are trivial click-bait and do not identify the author. No, not for me.
Hortense
@Cheryl Rofer: thanks so much for this information, it really helps. – I also like the site layout and graphics – everything’s so clearer than the old version