OPINION - Shields and Brooks 12/23/2016

"Shields and Brooks on Trump's unprecedented transition" PBS NewsHour 12/23/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President-elect Donald Trump made headlines this week for his reference to a possible arms race and his involvement in U.S.  foreign policy prior to taking office.  Judy Woodruff speaks with syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks about whether Mr.  Trump's strategy is to keep people “off balance,” as well as potential conflicts of interest within his Cabinet.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  And to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Gentlemen, welcome.

So let's start out talking about two major foreign policy waves, I guess you could say, that Donald Trump is making today, David.  He directly intervened with the White House as they were deciding how to handle this U.N.  resolution on Israel.  There is now an open rift with President Obama.  This is different, isn't it, from the way we see a transition normally work?

DAVID BROOKS, New York Times:  Certainly, the country can't have two Presidents at once, so the tradition has been to hang back if you're the president-elect and wait for your time in office.  Trump is not a hang-back kind of guy.

And he has shifted — President Obama has shifted American policy in a much more critical way in Israel with the settlements than the previous Presidents.  But we're about to get a head-snapping shift the other way.  President-elect Trump's Ambassador to Israel is further to the right than almost anyone in Israel, further to the right than Bibi Netanyahu on the settlements, and almost opposes the two-state solution, does in fact.

So, we are about to see a tremendous shift in American policy toward the Middle East.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  How do you see this, Mark?  Are there consequences of this or is this going to be something we look back on and say, well, that's what happened?

MARK SHIELDS, syndicated columnist:  No, I mean, I think Donald Trump is sui generis.  I mean, he is acting by president or tradition.  He's not acting as Donald Trump has throughout his entire public career of, what, a year and a half, and that is to be impulsive, be spontaneous, keep his opponents or adversaries off balance.  That's his approach.  He is not into nuance, that is not his strength.

And the President (Obama) said this week, he's (Trump) entitled to his own policies and but just hope that it's deliberate and thoughtful.  And this strikes me as anything but.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Well, in addition to Israel, what we were sitting here talking about nuclear policy because Donald Trump tweeted, as far as we can tell, out of the blue yesterday, David, that the United States needs to beef up its nuclear arsenal.  He did an interview with Mika Brzezinski of NBC this morning and I’m just reading the quote here.  He said, “Let it be an arms race, we will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.”

So, what does this say?

DAVID BROOKS:  Yes, one of the things I think about with Donald Trump is what are his words actually attached to?  With a normal President like President Obama, he says a word, and that’s because there has been some thought that he’s done and there had been policy papers and there’s been aides and there’s been advisors and then there is a connection to an actual set of policies.  And so, the words like have roots into actual stuff.

With Trump, I’m not sure the words have roots.  They are emanations of his psyche, but has he thought it through?  Is there an argument, is there a policy implication?

Even in this nuclear thing, he says we should be stronger and expand.  What does that mean?  So, what is concrete in what he’s saying?

And I think as we interpret him and frankly as the world learns to interpret Donald Trump, are these just words that are enigmatic things floating on air or are they actually shifts in policy and will they change moment by moment, day by day without any underlying connection to the actual stuff of governance?  I don’t know.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Mark, we’re talking about nuclear arms policy.  This is something that in the past, it was something that people spent time thinking about before statements were made.  You know, you said a minute ago, you think he’s keeping everybody off balance.  Is this a deliberate strategy?

MARK SHIELDS:  Well, I think that’s part of it.  The points David make I think really deserve reflection and consideration.  I think Donald Trump, we have to understand, has not had experiences like any other President we’ve ever had.  He’s never been accountable to anybody, save Donald Trump.

I mean, he has no investors.  He has — he has debtors, but he doesn’t have a board of directors.  He doesn’t have a corporate structure he’s had to answer to.  So he’s been able to kind of wing it at every stage.

I just don’t think he understands — the point David was making is when a President makes a statement, Judy, it is studied around the world, the nuance and was there an emphasis here, and what was in the last statement that’s missing — perhaps overly done, maybe overly analyzed.  But because the President’s words are pretentious, they really carry with them enormous significance and are usually reflective of great consideration and even arguments within, that one side is wanted, one particular paragraph or sentence, while the other said, no, that shouldn’t be in there.

So, I just think that Trump — he has not made the transition, it seems to me, from candidate to even President in waiting.  He has been a sore winner.  He continues to in his rallies to berate Hillary Clinton.  That sense of gracious, generosity or larger vision has eluded him so far.

AFRICA - Genocide Warnings in Central African Republic

"Lack of security adds to Central African Republic crisis" PBS Newshour 12/4/2013

Excerpt

GWEN IFILL (Newshour):  Tomorrow, the United Nations Security Council will vote on sending forces into the Central African Republic, where 12 more civilians were killed in fighting today.  The French have already dispatched more than 600 soldiers to the troubled nation, with more on the way.

The CAR has fallen into chaos since rebels seized control of the capital last spring.

We have a report from Alex Thompson of Independent Television News.

A warning:  Some images may be disturbing to some viewers.

SYRIA - President Obama Takes Argument Abroad and IF Assad Goes Unchecked

"Arguing World Credibility at Stake, Obama Seeks Support for Syria Strike Abroad" (Part-1) PBS Newshour 9/4/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Obama took his case for a possible military strike in Syria overseas, appealing to Russia to stop blocking United Nations Security Council action.  Gwen Ifill reports on remarks Mr. Obama's remarks in Stockholm, plus the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's approval of a resolution authorizing the limited use of force.

"Natl. Security Official:  If Assad Goes Unchecked, He'll Use Chemical Arms Again" (Part-2) PBS Newshour 9/4/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  With bipartisan support mounting, Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken says "the momentum is there" to win approval from Congress to use force in Syria.  Judy Woodruff talks to Blinken about the goals of a military strike and the increased assistance now being sent to the Syrian opposition from the U.S. government.

NORTH KOREA - Unanimous UN Vote for Imposing New Sanctions

"As UN Levels New Sanctions, Pyongyang Threatens Preemptive Nuclear Attack" PBS Newshour 3/7/2013

Excerpt

RAY SUAREZ (Newshour):  It took less than three minutes for the U.N. Security Council to agree on its fourth round of sanctions against North Korea.  The vote was unanimous, imposing new financial curbs.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice:

UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR SUSAN RICE, United Nations:  Taken together, these sanctions will bite, and bite hard.  They increase North Korea's isolation and raise the cost to North Korea's leaders of defying the international community.

RAY SUAREZ:  The sanctions aim to make it more difficult for North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, to finance his nuclear and missile program.  In December, the North successfully fired a long-range rocket, saying it was designed to orbit a satellite.

And last month, North Koreans cheered scientists who carried out the country's third nuclear test.  That event directly provoked today's U.N. action.  North Korea's closest ally, China, even helped draft the sanctions.

CHINESE AMBASSADOR LI BAODONG, United Nations:  We want to see full implementation of the resolution.  The top priority now is to defuse the tension, bring down the heat.

SYRIA - UN, Around and Around We Go

"China, Russia Veto U.N. Sanctions Resolution Against Syria" (Part-1) PBS Newshour 7/19/2012

Excerpt

SUMMARY: Despite harsh condemnation from other members of the U.N. Security Council, China and Russia vetoed a resolution that would have pressured Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime to end violence against the uprising there. A Russian official said the measure would give Western countries leverage in overturning the government.

JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour): Recriminations flew at the United Nations today after a new push to punish Syria came to naught again. As diplomacy failed, a Syrian human rights group reported more than 250 people died today in fighting across the country, and Damascus itself slid closer to chaos.

SUSAN RICE, U.S. ambassador to the U.N.: The Security Council has failed utterly in its most important task on its agenda this year.

JEFFREY BROWN: The U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, minced no words after Russia and China once again vetoed a resolution that threatened sanctions on Syria.

SUSAN RICE: One can only hope that one day, before too many thousands more die, that Russia and China will stop protecting Assad and allow this council to play its proper role.

JEFFREY BROWN: It was the third time Moscow and Beijing have blocked U.N. efforts to make Syrian President Bashar al-Assad stop the attacks on his own people. And this latest veto drew condemnation from country after country.

"Fears Mount Over Assad's Stockpiles of Chemical Weapons" (Part-2) PBS Newshour 7/19/2012

Excerpt

SUMMARY: In addition to the diplomatic tension with China and Russia, reports that some of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapon stockpiles were recently moved have increased fears. Jeffrey Brown talks to Leonard Spector of the Monterey Institute of International Studies and Julian Barnes of The Wall Street Journal.

COMMENT: When it comes to Russia their ONLY concern is the Naval Base in Syria. They are NOT really concerned about the Syrian people.

SYRIA - Conflict Update

"New Despair After Syria Massacre" (Part-1) PBS Newshour 7/13/2012

Excerpt

JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour): A fresh atrocity in Syria stirred new condemnation today, and new despair over how to stop the killing. The opposition claimed the military and Alawite militias loyal to President Assad had slaughtered Sunnis. Accounts of how many died ranged from 70 to more than 200.

We begin with a report from Jonathan Rugman of Independent Television News.

"Diplomatic Process 'Paralyzed' in Syria Conflict" (Part-2) PBS Newshour 7/13/2012

Excerpt

SUMMARY: Judy interviews Elizabeth Kennedy, Associated Press bureau chief in Beirut. They discuss the latest massacre, Russia's support, the chemical weapons stockpile and a warning by Hillary Clinton to the U.N. Security Council.

POLITICS - Iran, A Nuclear Threat? Really?

Points to consider...

"The Final Say" by Eric Margolis, Toronto Sun (bold = my emphases)

Iran's nuclear program is a danger to the entire world, U.S. President George Bush warned again last week as Washington pressed the UN Security Council to impose sanctions.

The uproar certainly helped distract public attention from the Bush administration's mounting domestic and foreign policy woes. It also showed how few people understand the Iranian nuclear question.

Experts say Iran may be in a position to fabricate a crude nuclear weapon in 5-10 years, but all the current alarms about Iran ignore a basic reality of nuclear weapons.

A nuclear device is useless unless it can be delivered with moderate accuracy over medium to long distances. One reason I was among the few insisting in 2002 that Iraq posed no threat was because it had no delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's most advanced missile could fly only 130 km. Its aircraft couldn't carry a nuclear weapon.

Even if Iran could fabricate, miniaturize and harden a nuclear warhead (a difficult achievement), the maximum range of the country's most advanced missile -- the highly inaccurate Shahab-3 -- is only about 1,300 kms. Iran has no nuclear-capable aircraft.

The only way Iran could pose the grave nuclear threat to the U.S. that Bush and his aides loudly claim, would be to send a nuclear device by freighter or FedEx.

The CIA admits North Korea's Taep'o-dong missile can today hit North America with a nuclear warhead. India's developing ICBMs and sea-launched missiles will also be able to do so in a few years. Contrast Washington's nonchalance about these real programs with the contrived hysteria over Iran.

The question we need to ask, and get a credible answer from G.W.'s Administration, is this level of treat really, really worth the very possible chance of igniting a "Holy War" between the West and the Arab/Muslim world? Note the bold stress on "Holy War," because this is what we would be facing. War is bad enough, but fighting a war where the other side sees it as a religious war is infinitely bad.