The Next President is...

[daynightindicator]

2 hours ago, matmacwc said:

Somewhere in the cobwebs of officer school I remember learning that military action was an end to political means.

Huge difference between international politics driving decisions to go to war (as they should and do) and domestic political strategists bringing up poll numbers and re-elect-ability when national security decisions are at stake (and I'm not suggesting we're there yet, but that's the slippery slope).

It's completely true that the President can make whatever decisions and listen to whoever they want...and I understand that in the past some presidents have marginalized the NSC or other agencies/positions when making their policy decisions.  But the fact of the matter is that the NSC is supposed to provide non-political advice on what's in the best interest of national security, which is why there has never been a political strategist as a permanent member of the PC.  In fact, as the article posted earlier shows, most of the time, when a political staffer attended meetings, it was met with strong rebukes from others in the administration/NSC.

Edit to add that the NSC works for the President, so obviously he's free to appoint whomever he wants on the council.  I just disagree with the judgment.  Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

Edited February 5, 2017 by daynightindicator
clarification

[SurelySerious]

Huge difference between international politics driving decisions to go to war (as they should and do) and domestic political strategists bringing up poll numbers and re-elect-ability when national security decisions are at stake (and I'm not suggesting we're there yet, but that's the slippery slope).

Please. All of Obama's decisions, for 8 years, were made seemingly based on re-elect-ability and his "legacy" instead of the best interests of the United States. I don't like the thought of either one of them making decisions that way, frankly, nor am I yet comfortable with Trump's motives...but Obama and his Harvard-smart team were the kings of making decisions to make him look good. Just without the guy on the NSC facade.

[tac airlifter]

16 minutes ago, daynightindicator said:

Huge difference between international politics driving decisions to go to war (as they should and do) and domestic political strategists bringing up poll numbers and re-elect-ability when national security decisions are at stake.

Is your position that international politics is not connected to domestic politics?  That nations make external decisions totally separate from internal pressures?  

Also, I can't help but be reminded of the previous administrations handling of Benghazi...... 7 weeks before the election and they were running on a platform of "al Qaeda is dead because we killed UBL" when in truth AQ had just murdered our ambassador.   You don't think Obama factored re-election into the calculus of his response and that invented narrative about a video?  

I just can't figure out what the issue is, or why it's an issue now.

[daynightindicator]

2 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Is your position that international politics is not connected to domestic politics?  That nations make external decisions totally separate from internal pressures?  

Also, I can't help but be reminded of the previous administrations handling of Benghazi...... 7 weeks before the election and they were running on a platform of "al Qaeda is dead because we killed UBL" when in truth AQ had just murdered our ambassador.   You don't think Obama factored re-election into the calculus of his response and that invented narrative about a video?  

I just can't figure out what the issue is, or why it's an issue now.

My position is that it's not the intended role of the NSC to inform policy decisions based on domestic or partisan political considerations.

The administration can do whatever it wants with the advice it gets, and can act based on whatever considerations they want.  All administrations have done that, and that's not what I'm arguing.  I'm specifically talking about the role the NSC plays in the process.

Also, I never brought up the Obama administration in any of my posts, nor did I mean to imply that any past admins or past NSCs have always handled things well.  I only noted that no previous administration has ever appointed a political strategist as a permanent member of the NSC's PC.

[tac airlifter]

44 minutes ago, daynightindicator said:

My position is that it's not the intended role of the NSC to inform policy decisions based on domestic or partisan political considerations.

Also, I never brought up the Obama administration in any of my posts, nor did I mean to imply that any past admins or past NSCs have always handled things well.  I only noted that no previous administration has ever appointed a political strategist as a permanent member of the NSC's PC.

For your last paragraph, valid, it was a general purpose comment as opposed to directed at you.  I should have been more clear.

To your first point-- I don't disagree in principal.  Our country is experiencing extreme partisan polarization right now.  It sucks.  Ideological obstacles are increasingly challenging our ability to get along with each other.  My point is, this NSC discussion isn't the core issue here; the core issue is we're at each other's throats about everything, and no institution is immune from collateral effects.

[daynightindicator]

For your last paragraph, valid, it was a general purpose comment as opposed to directed at you.  I should have been more clear.
To your first point-- I don't disagree in principal.  Our country is experiencing extreme partisan polarization right now.  It sucks.  Ideological obstacles are increasingly challenging our ability to get along with each other.  My point is, this NSC discussion isn't the core issue here; the core issue is we're at each other's throats about everything, and no institution is immune from collateral effects.

Totally agree there. The anger on both sides and hyper-partisanship is pretty bad and discouraging.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[brickhistory]

1 hour ago, daynightindicator said:

 

Totally agree there. The anger on both sides and hyper-partisanship is pretty bad and discouraging.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

 

Which is why I am enjoying the consternation being wrought on both sides of the aisle by the current occupant of the White House.

I hope he shakes things up, shuts things down, and causes people to be fired and defeated at election time.

(R) and (D).

[daynightindicator]

Which is why I am enjoying the consternation being wrought on both sides of the aisle by the current occupant of the White House.
I hope he shakes things up, shuts things down, and causes people to be fired and defeated at election time.
® and (D).

Burning down the house because the living room is messy isn't my preferred solution, but to each his own.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[brickhistory]

21 minutes ago, daynightindicator said:

 

Burning down the house because the living room is messy isn't my preferred solution, but to each his own.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

 

Good analogy.

 

To continue it; the rich, oblivious families living in both wings of the house have ignored the spreading black mold in the walls.  So much so, that the spores are causing sickness among the help - those that maintain the house and the grounds.

Property values with the neighbors are declining because of the problems.

Direct sunlight, perhaps even controlled burns, are often times good solutions.

 

 

[17D_guy]

So here's the Fox News Interview video.  The comments w/ the President saying "You think our country's so innocent?" start around 2:20.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5311416183001/?#sp=show-clips

 

edit: watched it about 3 times now trying to get context.  Think he's trying to imply Dubya as a killer on par with Putin?

 

Edited February 6, 2017 by 17D_guy

[Fuzz]

You honestly believe that it matters who sits in the official seats? News flash those are the people that can get through the Congressional hearings without expending a mountain of political capitol. The POTUS has had and will always have the unofficial advisors (Bannons, Jarrets etc) that will guide policy probably more so than anyone with a Cabinet Title. (See Presidential Kitchen Cabinets or FDRs Brain Trust).

[Guest]

On 2/6/2017 at 11:23 AM, 17D_guy said:

So here's the Fox News Interview video.  The comments w/ the President saying "You think our country's so innocent?" start around 2:20.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5311416183001/?#sp=show-clips

 

edit: watched it about 3 times now trying to get context.  Think he's trying to imply Dubya as a killer on par with Putin?

 

I think Donnie actually believes it. You would think the Blues would gang up on Donnie for it, but it is the Reds who have been the loudest. Check out Mitch.

https://nypost.com/2017/02/06/mcconnell-to-trump-putin-is-a-thug/

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/2/5/1630286/-Trump-dismisses-Putin-s-bloody-record-in-comments-so-gross-they-even-got-Mitch-McConnell-s-attention

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/317959-mcconnell-breaks-with-trump-on-putin

Furthermore, this ties into a theme that runs in Donnie's rhetoric that America is not, never been exceptional. Reds roasted Barry over similar sentiment, but nothing to see/hear right now. 

[nsplayr]

 

No relationship with Putin huh?

The acceptance of Trump cozying up to Russia by much of the right is the most confusing thing to me. Being oddly aligned with Russia isn't a Republicsn position, it's not a conservative position, it's not a patriotic position. O'Reilly is right - Putin is a killer and drawing moral comparisons between his regime and the US is an insane position for a US President to take. 

Edited February 7, 2017 by nsplayr

[daynightindicator]

https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-kara-murza-acute-poisoning-blood-israel-kremlin-critic/28285215.html

Another Putin critic turns up in the hospital...suspected poisoning. Actually, the 2nd time in two years he's been poisoned.

But Putin should be respected


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[tac airlifter]

4 hours ago, daynightindicator said:

https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-kara-murza-acute-poisoning-blood-israel-kremlin-critic/28285215.html

Another Putin critic turns up in the hospital...suspected poisoning. Actually, the 2nd time in two years he's been poisoned.

But Putin should be respected


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Do you think it would be better for our nation if Trump said he didn't respect Putin?  Would edging us closer to open hostilities with Russia make us safer?  And what exactly do you guys want to happen with the US - Russia relationship?  We can't influence him if we isolate him, and I certainly don't want to fight them.  We would lose.

i just can't figure out why so many democrats (not necessarily you) are seemingly pushing Trump towards hostilities with Russia while simulataneously blocking hostilities with Iran.  

[tk1313]

7 hours ago, nsplayr said:

 

No relationship with Putin huh?

The acceptance of Trump cozying up to Russia by much of the right is the most confusing thing to me. Being oddly aligned with Russia isn't a Republicsn position, it's not a conservative position, it's not a patriotic position. O'Reilly is right - Putin is a killer and drawing moral comparisons between his regime and the US is an insane position for a US President to take. 

I'm no expert in behavioral analysis, but when he said "I do have a relationship with him." I believed him as much as my wife believes me when I say, "Yeah, honey... Of course I remember that conversation we had three weeks ago about that random girl at work that you hate. Every detail is chiseled into my mind. What's her name? Uh...You know I'm better with faces, love."

Edited February 7, 2017 by tk1313

[Prozac]

Should Trump also state that he has great respect for Kim Jong Un and blatantly refuse to criticize the North Korean regime for fear of starting a war?  It is possible to criticize a leader without it leading to outright hostilities.  Putin is a strongman who is not afraid to brutally silence his critics, order his military to openly attack civilians, and disrupt the free and fair democratic process in The West.  He absolutely should be criticised by the leader of the free world.  Instead, Trump thinks the US is right in there with him.  WTF?  The man is off the rails.  "Any negative polls are fake news"?????  I have little doubt that Trump would just love to be half the strong man Putin is.

[nsplayr]

^Agreed

This isn't a black-or-white characterization. You can absolutely say that you want to improve relations with Russia while at the same time decrying their invasion of Ukraine, killing civilians in Syria and meddling in our democratic process. In fact, that's exactly the position I would  advocate - you don't want to purposely and needlessly piss someone off, but you don't have to suck their d*ck every chance you get either.

I'd love to have "phenomenal relationships" with all the rogue regimes around globe, just as soon as they stop being flagrant assholes at every opportunity. When we can improve things and work deals that are to our advantage, we should, but rhetorical capitulation and ass-kissing isn't typically a great negotiation strategy...

Russia is typically a bad actor on the international stage and they're heavily invested in breaking the liberal democratic Western order that the US built and leads. Putin has killed opposition figures with comic book bad guy tactics (polonium poisoning after being stabbed with an umbrella) and the US President thinks, "(sic) He's doing a brilliant job." Great.

p.s. - the US would "lose a fight with Russia?" Seriously?

Edited February 8, 2017 by nsplayr

[tac airlifter]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

^Agreed

This isn't a black-or-white characterization. You can absolutely say that you want to improve relations with Russia while at the same time decrying their invasion of Ukraine, killing civilians in Syria and meddling in our democratic process. In fact, that's exactly the position I would  advocate - you don't want to purposely and needlessly piss someone off, but you don't have to suck their d*ck every chance you get either.

I'd love to have "phenomenal relationships" with all the rogue regimes around globe, just as soon as they stop being flagrant assholes at every opportunity. When we can improve things and work deals that are to our advantage, we should, but rhetorical capitulation and ass-kissing isn't typically a great negotiation strategy...

Russia is typically a bad actor on the international stage and they're heavily invested in breaking the liberal democratic Western order that the US built and leads. Putin has killed opposition figures with comic book bad guy tactics (polonium poisoning after being stabbed with an umbrella) and the US President thinks, "(sic) He's doing a brilliant job." Great.

p.s. - the US would "lose a fight with Russia?" Seriously?

The US would absolutely lose our most likely fight with Russia (Kaliningrad).  It can't be debated here, so let's agree to disagree.  But I'm curious, have you attended any wargames on the myriad potential scenarios?  Is it possible there might be something here you don't know?  Rhetorical only.

let me ask you this instead: everything you wrote above is even more true about Iran.  Did you disagree with Obama and vociferously elucidate the errors of his policies WRT paying them billions which they've funneled to terrorists?  Do you think Russia is more likely to foment regional conflagration than Iran?  And what's your take on the Obama led Russian reset?  Was he foolish for trying to start a new relationship, or did you give him the benefit of the doubt?  

From my perspective, I don't know what Trump is doing.  He's definitely not following the standard playbook of graduated response starting with verbal chastisement; and saying he respects Putin seems weird to me.  But you know what?  We've been following expert advice my whole professional career and we're worse off now than 15 years ago.  I listen everyday to PHDs blabber on about how we just need to try the same IR policies, and when I inquire why none of those policies seems to work in the real world their answers are unsatisfactory. Trump is trying something totally new.  Looks crazy.  I'll withhold judgement, the experts have all been wrong thus far.  Besides, Trump called the super bowl almost perfectly when everyone around me thought he was nuts.  That counts for something!

Edited February 8, 2017 by tac airlifter
Spelling sucks. 2x old fashioned into my evening....

[17D_guy]

I miss the days when I my party stood for the American Exceptionalism.  Now we're just like every other nation state according to the Command-in-Chief.

 

[daynightindicator]

4 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Do you think it would be better for our nation if Trump said he didn't respect Putin?  Would edging us closer to open hostilities with Russia make us safer?  And what exactly do you guys want to happen with the US - Russia relationship?  We can't influence him if we isolate him, and I certainly don't want to fight them.  We would lose.

i just can't figure out why so many democrats (not necessarily you) are seemingly pushing Trump towards hostilities with Russia while simulataneously blocking hostilities with Iran.  

I'm not advocating a WWE-style rant about how terrible Putin is.  Rex Tillerson made a tactful reply during his hearing when he stated that he couldn't state that Putin was a war criminal (he is) because of the international legal implications of that statement.  You can say things that get your point across without stating "I don't respect him."  You could simply state that you respect the Russian people and that you do not condone the actions of their President, and that his actions are massively destabilizing.

I don't want to fight them either.  I'm well versed on the threat and I disagree with your assertion that we'd lose, but I agree this isn't the forum to discuss it.

There are other ways to pressure Russia.  They are exceptionally dependent on hydrocarbons and they have terrible internal issues (demographics alone may bring them down without our help).  I also don't want to see Russia collapse entirely due to the effect on the European and international economy.  We have other tools to bring to bear to influence their decision matrix.  Sanctions have been effective, and there are ways to exert our own influence in a similar manner to how they've influenced other nations in Eastern Europe.  We need to step up our own information operations in that region to counter their propoganda.

Russia is Putin...for now.  The Russian people like him because they see him as having made their country powerful after the humiliation of the 1990s, and something in which they can take pride.  The history of Russia is one of nationalism and patriotism - for the state, not for the individual leader.  Since their history is also one of monarchies and authoritarian rulers, it's easy to confuse that with blind loyalty to their leaders, but the fact is they support a great(er) Russia, and will support anyone they think can effect that end-state.  Putin is that person right now, but won't be forever.  The reigns of Russian leaders usually meet abrupt ends.

[tac airlifter]

 

on second thought, given Russian aggression in Korea we should probably start that war!  Anymore troops on the peninsula and it might capsize......

[hispeed7721]

 
Anymore troops on the peninsula and it might capsize......

Speaking of capsizing, here's one that never gets old...

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Guest]

9 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Do you think it would be better for our nation if Trump said he didn't respect Putin?  Would edging us closer to open hostilities with Russia make us safer?  And what exactly do you guys want to happen with the US - Russia relationship?  We can't influence him if we isolate him, and I certainly don't want to fight them.  We would lose.

i just can't figure out why so many democrats (not necessarily you) are seemingly pushing Trump towards hostilities with Russia while simulataneously blocking hostilities with Iran.  

I would rather not fight Russia OR/AND Iran. Iran, 2.5x the population and 3x the land size of Iraq. No thank you to cheap rugs, speaking Farsi and nation building. And oh btw they have proxies in Yemen, Iraq and Syria...good luck!

[nsplayr]

@tac airlifter so you upvoted @daynightindicator's post and so did I...guess we can agree after all!

BL: no need to go crazy war-hawk and start threatening to nuke Russia, but no need to tickle Putin's balls either. Several previous admin have tried a middle ground somewhere in between those two, I guess now we'll see how far kissing the ring gets us...