Gulf of Understanding

 

 Let's Talk About America

This is about more than just the US of A, which is all that our new Dictator King claims so far to rule, though he pretends to want to extend its borders to Greenland.  It would "look so strong" on those spread out, 2-D  maps of the world which have to stretch that land mass out insanely.  I'm sure that's the idea fixed in his mind.  In this case, he's using this cute little head-fake of renaming the Gulf of Mexico, to help remind his undiscerning voters that this is part of making America Great.  

But what is America?  Most of the Western Hemisphere probably think it refers to them, too.  You know, Brazil and Paraguay in South America, Nicaragua and Belize in Central America, even the rest of North America (maybe Canada not so much).  Admittedly, the Gulf pictured and mis-named here has only three nations that it borders--Mexico, the US, and Cuba.  I would suggest that the truer American body of water is the Caribbean Sea, which is a big deal geographically for most of the hemisphere, at least on the Atlantic side.

It is fair to say that Donald Trump is an American President, but he is not the President of America.  One should not conclude that he has an intention to make great all of America; at best, his constituent interest--the ones unto whom he is legally accountable, if that means anything anymore--is limited to the borders of the US and its assorted territories (not colonies, we pretend).  And the District of Columbia, technically within the US' borders, but just to be clear:  I say he is a criminal allowed to roam the streets there only with armed guards.

I'm sure, if Trump were ever to consider the rest of the Western Hemisphere, he would just seek to dominate and intimidate, though it would be a worthy objective instead to give sincere assistance to all the nations of the hemisphere. 

Not-so-Loyal Opposition

 Recently I have been struggling with the meaning of a logical conclusion that starts with the premise that the Trump Restoration was not a fluke; that it is the prevailing voice of Who We Are.   If you feel, as I do, that this regime is up to no good, then we should be looking for the US to do as little as possible abroad.  Because what we do--apart from whether it is done effectively or not--is bound to be harmful.  Harmful there, and ultimately, because we are part of it all, whether we believe it or not, harmful here, as well. 

That is not a simple principle to execute without immense damage.  We saw it in Afghanistan, and we would see it in a whole variety of nations.  The vacuum of power resulting would be catastrophic in Central Europe, in Northeast Asia, on the borders with Russia, in the Middle East--though we can see that this administration seems willing to ignore the latter.  This suggests that one of the first dominos to be pulled out of play will be the contingent in northeast Syria supporting the Kurdish-led independent force there, a mini-regime in defiance of Turkey and holders of much of the land once ruled by ISIS. * I would expect that our forces in Iraq will be withdrawn.  Also, I think those who are eagerly anticipating the US war with Iran will be disappointed; as Trump will make a deal to keep Iran from exploding the nuke test they are readying. .

Like I say, though, it's probably for the better.  We do not want to be involved in Syria, though we wish them well.  At worst, it's Europe's problem.  From our opposing and limiting point of view, his withdrawal from the hot spots is pushing against an open door.  (Which is the opposite of an Open Door policy.)  But let's slow down the larger withdrawals in these first months to allow development of defense against our packing up and departing. 

Instead of the US and the CIA etc., which works out badly in the best of times, we should defy the Trump Administration and have shadow representatives from the USA in global conferences, specifically from states.  As an example, California should be formally admitted to the Global Climate Conference, in place of the US representative. Some other states should petition for that one, as well.

Speaking of windmills (I am in favor, and feel Trump's resistance is, at best, quixotic), I suggest myself for a contingent of Americans willing to bunk down in Denmark to support the resistance against expansionist, imperialistic American--and by this I mean the US, under King D------d I, may his stench be contained--trade representatives. 

We should all be working on Buying Not-American, especially now before the prices go up with tariffs. If I only cared for Molson beer....

We have to distinguish between those right there with the Mumps--Bezos and his charming, underdressed partner, Zuck, and some unnamed South Asian CEO type, from all of which we should seek to disengage, loudly and publicly--and those who would have to show up but not be seen in public with them. Can we credit Disney and Apple, who were not there and did not give a million, maybe?  The one that's hardest to see giving up entirely is Google.  And no nvidious distinctions, damnit!   

 

* Speaking of which, what has he done to make us safe from ISIS?  Snow is not going to make New Orleans safe. 

And, why hasn't the war between Russia and Ukraine been stopped yet?

 

Coronation Day

 The cloud of hangers-on and office-seekers at Mar-a-Lago resembles to me the courtiers and vicious court politics of past monarchy--imagine Henry VIII with a couple less wives, a couple more male heirs.  The new king will have the power to build up or cancel those who dare to question his arbitrary will.

The "electoral wisdom of the American voter" has brought us to this juncture, an embarrassment before all the world.  Oligarchy has been sneaking up on us, but now it's a stampede to give away the fiefs (in this modern time, the departments of the Federal executive) and their product to the highest bidders. 

The ceremony is being brought inside to the Capitol Rotunda because of cold weather.  Donald Trump should have been declared persona non grata by Congress and, rather than being invited inside to "celebrate" his ascension, he should have been banned from the building, upon pain of death.  The Senators should give him the Julius Caesar treatment. 

I have only one piece of advice to those who will observe or read the Trump's inauguration speech:  Do not believe anything he says.  Some of it may be true, some will surely be lies, much of it will express professed intention that will never come to pass.  All of it will be bluster, toxic, fake masculinity.  Yes, he's a dickhead--All Hail King Dickhead I and the Drumpfen dynasty!  Or else....

 

Photo credit to

Micolash Viesczy at Sound Cloud

The Bigger Picture

The Carter-Biden Parallels

The Presidential term of each was a moment of respite between periods of Republican mal-administration+.  Neither was ever good enough for all Democrats.  Both were supposed to be transitional toward something better, but ended up giving way to something worse. They were peacetime Presidents, and with Americans focused on domestic difficulty, found their approval levels underwater at the critical time for possible re-election. Both had major legislative achievements, and foreign policy successes, which were dimmed in the public view by electoral defeat.  Both governed as forward-looking moderates, but even that mild liberalism provoked a successful right-wing reaction.

Biden and Carter are truly linked in history.  Biden pointed out the other day that Carter had--recently--thanked him for being the first Senator to endorse him in his 1976 campaign.  (Biden was in his first term then, and not many noticed, but Jimmy did.)  They represent a standard of morality and respect that is rapidly disappearing. 

Biden's interview with the USA Today* is by definition self-serving.  Apart from the requisite bragging on achievements, I note that he failed to mention the mess he dumped on Kamala++, or even to mention her name, I believe. As someone with remarkably broad and lengthy experience, it is far more important to read what he is saying about the world.  He has a clear perception that it has changed, but the vision of what will become is a void. His focus in governing was simply to prepare the US for whatever was to come.

Almost enough about him, though I'm expecting a couple of good deeds from Joe, before he leaves: A  statement that the Equal Rights Amendment has the requisite number of states having ratified, so it should be considered law; Re-Scheduling marijuana (now known as cannabis, for marketing purposes) to make the awkward Federal stance on it less undermining of the rule of law.  

Don't let me down, Joe--I've been one of your great, hidden supporters, when it still counted. And, for the record, I don't blame you (or Kamala) for the electoral defeat.  The blame lies with our inadequately-engaged electorate, and if one insists on a name, RFKJr.

 Let's focus on some things beyond the domestic issues in our swath of land in temperate North America (plus Alaska and Hawaii) and our 4.3% of world citizens. 

 Global Gaslighting

It's so bright, I'd bet the astronauts stuck in the International Space Station can see it from orbit.  The Once and Future King Dickhead I has announced he intends to conquer Greenland and impose his will on the Panama Canal.  No doubt he's been getting briefings again, and then letting his imagination run wild.  Yes, these will be suitable distractions while his brutalist diplomacy produces meager results on the Russia/Ukraine front, or with China, or with Israel.  

I grant that both are strategically important, but we already have a base on Greenland.  We could try to negotiate something with Panama on the operation of the canal in the case of emergencies, but that should be in the form of an agreement, not a purchase or a conquest. It is a good example of Trump's version of deal-making: start with the impossible, whine and bluster a lot, and get something undeserved in the end.

I am expecting Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu to pull the January Surprise gambit, in the mode of Iran and the US hostages back in the days of Carter and Reagan, . I could see him providing Trump with an inauguration-related present of a ceasefire in Gaza.  Hamas seems to be eager to be done with this, so it can heal itself. That may be the remaining issue: Can Hamas be allowed to heal itself?  I know the Palestinian Authority is seeking to show itself worthy of responsibility, but Bibi doesn't trust them, never has and never will. 

In terms of the Israelis' war aims, they achieved part of them, due in particular to their spies who knocked off Hamas' leader two different times and produced incredible acts of sabotage against Hezbollah.  They leveled much of Northern Gaza, maybe not as much as they'd like, but the aim of neutralizing it as a threat is somewhat attained.  Release of the hostages, though, is Bibi's vulnerability, and its continuing lack of resolution further reminds Israelis that it was on his watch they were abducted in the first place.  

Can Netanyahu survive in his job when the ceasefire is declared?  He's successfully building up brownie points with the hawkish Israeli political mood by destroying Hezbollah's leadership and coming out on top of long-distance battles with Iran and the Houthis.  Now he gets to rub it in against near-defenseless Syria in the Golan Heights, and running hundreds of sorties against Syrian weapons facilities.  The reveal on the hostages, when it finally comes, is going to be very rough for his chances, though. 

Syria Game-Change

No matter how the new ruling coalition in Damascus turns out, the lightning-fast defeat of Assad's brutal rule over Syria has produced two favorable results.  One is that there is now the possibility of return for the millions of political refugees.  That will be a boon to neighboring Lebanon and Turkey, and also for those who successfully gained refuge throughout Europe and in many corners of the US, giving them a choice and a chance. The second is that Russia got a poke in the eye, a "serious" defeat.  The deep presence of Russia in Syria's horrible recent history goes back all the way to Assad's father's reign, and Russian participation in the war crimes and crimes against humanity of Assad's reign is just a matter of how much can or will be ever be proved. 

The victorious HTS coalition has a clear leader, al-Jolani, who faces a daunting array of challenges. The normal approach for a leader who takes the capital of a riven country is to try to gain control over all of the nation, through any means necessary.  If he pursues that, it may put him in conflict with Turkey, which has sponsored one of the lesser forces in his coalition and has its own objectives. What's worse for him Turkey is also messing with the Kurds in the northeast of the country, who have control over some imprisoned ISIS fighters and over camps of those prisoner's kin. There is also a US contingent with the Kurds-a very volatile situation. As mentioned, Israel has gone beyond the Golan Heights, which they captured back in the day from Syria, and is encroaching further into Syrian territory. Finally, there is the coastal area, which still has a Russian base and is the stronghold of Alawites, the minority group of Assad's clan.  I'd say he needs to find friends, real fast. 

He could still be an upset winner in this competition, along with Syria and other countries in the region, and, so far, Israel as well--in the post-Gaza portion of their multilateral, multi-phase warmaking, at least. On the losing side, more even than the Russians and almost as completely as Assad, is Iran.  In particular, the Revolutionary Guards of Iran and their ambitions in the region.  As with Syria, though, there could be real opportunity for Iran to lower tensions and end the conflict, which has become endemic to much of the region and is now threatening Iran itself. If Trump were to do the unexpected, which he claims is his way, he could make a positive difference, conditionally, in both Syria and Iran, to the discomfort of Putin and Russia. 

But What of Ukraine? . 

Some believe that Trump's imminent arrival in the White House will lead immediately to the settlement and end of the warfare that we all want.  The notion would be that Putin is ready to settle, but he won't do it while Biden is in office, or alternatively, that he is waiting to make the deal with Trump.  I am not one of those people. 

My perception is that, even though Russia's resources are straining, particularly for manpower but also for armaments and willpower, Putin is not yet ready to accept an end to the fighting.  One more season to try to break the losing streak and crush Ukraine, I think is his thinking.  So, the regrets will come from both sides when the deal is finally made.  I'm thinking it will take a few more months, though the boundaries may not be much changed. 

What the US will or won't do for Ukraine under Trump's direction in the meantime will not be so decisive.  What is going to decide this war of attrition is whether Ukraine can hold on, more or less in the current lines, through 2025.  I think Biden's administration will give Ukraine enough of the arms that have proven successful in the current context to make it through this year without losing too much more territory or the key cities of the Eastern part of the country, and then both sides will be exhausted and ready for an armistice, if not a peace settlement.  Personally, I think the fair demands of Ukraine upon Russia are far beyond what merely giving them the assets confiscated from Russia would amount to, and so there may never be a true accord, but the war would cease for the time being.  I hope they prove me wrong, that they demilitarize the Donbas and the land bridge below Kherson that the Russians have taken, while Crimea is demilitarized and original boundaries are restored in other areas, and reparations are begun.  Doesn't seem too likely, does it? 

I'll tackle East Asia next time, and I really have nothing to say about the Southern Hemisphere, except that I will point out, with regard to the "Gulf of America" headfake, that the whole Western Hemisphere is America, not just the US.   If it were renamed with that in mind, I would mind less.  (Does this go for "America First", too?)

 

+  Reagan was perceived as being somewhat better than either Carter or his predecessor Ford; it was not his simplistic political worldview, but better choice in circumstances, tactics and key appointments.  Ford, in retrospect, deserves the same kind of praise that Pence does:  cursed by his partisan history to be boxed into failure, despite acting with virtue. Carter and Biden, cursed by current events.

++Who is looking very good as the current de facto Democratic leader. Until Hakeem gets control of the House.

*Go to your local Gannett newspaper, or to the USA Today.  They can't wait to plug their Exclusive. I do encourage reading it unemotionally.