Smart and Evil

Former President Donald Trump has been sharply criticized – for once, by Republicans as well as by Democrats – for declaring last week that Hezbollah, an Iran-backed Lebanese militant group designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization, is “very smart.” The New York Times quoted a Biden Administration spokesman in response: “Statements like this are dangerous and unhinged. It’s completely lost on us why any American would ever praise an Iran-backed terrorist organization as ‘smart.’” The Times quoted former Vice President Mike Pence as saying, “Look, Hezbollah are not smart. They’re evil, OK.”

I located the video clip; I wanted to hear Mr. Trump’s tone. I frankly couldn’t tell from his delivery whether he was actually praising Hezbollah – which, if he was, is as repulsive as any of the literally thousand other abhorrent statements he has made since he injected his brand of poison into our political fabric in 2015 – or simply making what he considered an objective observation as a launching point for his attack on Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu, who has seemingly invoked Mr. Trump’s wrath by praising President Joe Biden for his support of Israel since the Hamas attacked from the Gaza Strip on October 7.

I don’t know if Hezbollah is smart. I would, however, respectfully disagree with Mr. Pence’s seeming implication that there is a dichotomy between “smart” and “evil.” A person or organization can be both smart and evil. One need look no further than Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf; the volume bulges with racism, malignance and hate, while it also contains Hitler’s brilliant – there is no other word for it — description of how best to create and wield propaganda to influence the masses. (I have frequently wondered whether certain elements of alt-right media haven’t used the book as a text.)

No matter how depraved an enemy might be, it is a dangerous indulgence to deny or underestimate its intelligence.

As President Biden has noted, Hamas is evil; no organization with a shred of good could have carried out the horrific attack on Israeli civilians it executed on October 7. I don’t know whether its leaders are smart; I do have trouble believing that it could have conducted its operation without the active participation, at least in the planning, by Iranian authorities, who are smart as well as evil. I would submit that the very ferocity and brutality of the attack was intended to leave Mr. Netanyahu and his cabinet no practical political choice but to invade Gaza. It took no prescience to anticipate that innocent Palestinian casualties would inevitably result in an Israeli invasion, which would in turn inflame the other Arab states. Cui bono? Who benefits? It appears that Israel’s offensive against Hamas, precipitated by Hamas’ attack, will derail any prospective accord between Israel and Saudi Arabia – an accord that would have significantly weakened Iran’s strategic posture in the Middle East.

At the same time, I would suggest that Hamas, Hezbollah, and other forces with similar aims were unwilling to wait for the inevitable Palestinian civilian casualties. I will venture that an entity aligned with them, rather than Israel, is responsible for the hospital explosion that that killed hundreds of innocents on October 17. I make this suggestion not based upon Israeli or U.S. denials, but upon what has happened since: Cui bono? The timing of the blast, from the standpoint of Iran and its satellites, was impeccable. The explosion has predictably outraged the entire Middle East. At the time it occurred, Mr. Biden was already committed to a trip intended to quiet tensions through meetings with Mr. Netanyahu, President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi of Egypt, King Abdullah II of Jordan and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority; after the explosion, the King and Messrs. El-Sisi and Abbas cancelled, leaving Mr. Biden seemingly one-sidedly embracing Mr. Netanyahu – obviously no choir boy from a foreign or Israeli domestic perspective. I fear that this well-intentioned trip has now become, due to a circumstance that I would submit was not reasonably foreseeable by Mr. Biden or his advisors (assuming that the blast wasn’t caused by Israel), a strategic backfire, likely damaging U.S. credibility in the region.

Again, as to Hamas’ initial terrorist attack: Cui bono? How much have you heard in the news about Ukraine since the Hamas attack? Despite all the Administration and Congressional vows to get aid to Israel, I strongly suspect that Israel, now aroused, is militarily more than a match for Hamas whether it gets American aid or not. Such is obviously not the case regarding Ukraine’s struggle against Russia. As America’s attention has been diverted to the Middle East by the Hamas attack, Ukraine’s resources to resist Russia – Iran’s ally — are dwindling, and the House of Representatives – the majority of whom, if reports are accurate, wish to provide Ukraine further aid — are prevented from doing so by House Republican caucus dysfunction and MAGA U.S. OH Rep. Jim Jordan’s quest for the Speakership.

And again, as to Hamas’ attack: Cui bono? President Xi Jinping of China must be pondering whether this is the right time to make a move on Taiwan. Given Mr. Biden’s resolve and the West’s collaborative response in responding to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, until recent days Mr. Xi might well have logically concluded that it was wiser to delay any overt action against Taiwan until it could be determined whether the American democratic fabric would further unravel during the upcoming U.S. presidential cycle. Now, it would seemingly be impossible in his place not to consider whether America and its people, even if they have the Pacific military might to repel any attempted Mainland invasion of Taiwan, have the will to confront such an invasion, given all the demands upon them in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Does the octogenarian Mr. Biden have the stamina?

Although it serves little purpose to note these glaringly ironic facts, I can’t resist: Hamas members are Sunni Muslims, and they – as well as their Iranian Shia Muslim collaborators – claim to be dedicated to the precepts of Allah communicated to them through Muhammad – the “Seal of the Prophets” — completely ignoring the fact that Muhammad peacefully allowed Jews to live within his kingdom; or that Jewish Israelis, who rue but accept that their Gaza offensive will inevitably cause injury and death to many innocent Palestinian civilians, subscribe to the Book of Genesis, which describes the Lord God’s efforts to protect innocents as he destroyed the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

I have indicated in these pages that I consider Mr. Biden the most consequential American president since Franklin Roosevelt. Mr. Biden faces not only the foreign policy challenges described here but also the rise of formidable illiberal forces within our own borders. During the next year, he has to persuade a majority of Americans in key swing states that the course he has and is pursuing is the wisest course for our nation and our citizens. While I would not go so far as to say that the severity of the challenges Mr. Biden is addressing is yet as acute as those confronted by his predecessors Abraham Lincoln and Mr. Roosevelt, I can think of no president in our history that has had to simultaneously confront such a wide array of truly critical crises as Mr. Biden does today.

Likely nothing here you haven’t already thought of. Sometimes, one just has to get it out. May Mr. Biden and his team persevere against both the evil … and the smart and evil.

On Kevin McCarthy’s Speakership Ouster

“The House of Representatives shall chuse [sic] their Speaker …”

Article I, Section 2; the Constitution of the United States of America

I had something ready to post yesterday morning, written on Tuesday after former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy was removed as Speaker and before I had heard much commentary from media talking heads, in which I queried whether the House Democratic caucus might not have missed an historic opportunity by failing to provide Mr. McCarthy the votes he needed to retain his office.

I am no fan of Mr. McCarthy. I find him gutless and more interested in title and the trappings of power than in real power. I consider him to have abided if not abetted in former President Donald Trump’s seditious attempt to thwart the results of the 2020 presidential election. I have found it unnerving to have him, as Speaker, second in succession to the presidency.

That said, I suggested in the unpublished post that the weak can serve a purpose; that Democrats might have been able to extract concessions from Mr. McCarthy that could have assured the quick passage of a clean aid bill for Ukraine, perhaps led to bipartisan collaboration on other initiatives between the less partisan members of both parties, and would at a minimum have eliminated the possibility that a MAGA would succeed Mr. McCarthy.

Even so, I pulled the post back because of a factor I heard frequently emphasized in media commentary about Mr. McCarthy after I had scheduled it: Democrats didn’t believe that he could be trusted to keep his word.

One can’t do business with somebody who can’t be trusted. If that was indeed the ground upon which Democrats decided to allow Mr. McCarthy’s ouster – rather than pique at Mr. McCarthy’s authorization of an impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden, or his potshots at them to appease his base, or some other similar grandstanding gesture – I understand why they did what they did.

That said, Pandora’s Box has clearly now been opened. At the time this is typed, U.S. LA Rep. Steve Scalise and U.S. OH Rep. Jim Jordan have announced their candidacies for the Speakership. In a January note in these pages on Mr. McCarthy’s quest for the Speakership, I indicated:

“If … I was a member of the House Republican Caucus, I’d be a hard No on Mr. McCarthy [due to his lack of fortitude] (unless the only alternative was U.S. OH Rep. Jim Jordan, whom I consider at this point to arguably present a greater danger to American democracy than former President Donald Trump). [Emphasis Added]”

I feel no differently about Mr. Jordan’s illiberal inclinations now than I did then [although I concede that given Mr. Trump’s statements and actions over the last nine months and given their respective positions in the MAGA universe, Mr. Jordan may not now present quite as great a danger to American democracy as Mr. Trump (but I am confident that he’ll make up the gap if given the opportunity)].

I fear that we may be descending into a political maelstrom. We’ll soon know whether Democrats’ refusal to prop up Mr. McCarthy was a wise maneuver or regrettable blunder.

On Mr. Prigozhin’s “Crash”

Russian news sources have reported that a plane carrying Wagner Group Leader Yevgeny Prigozhin “crashed” yesterday about 30 minutes after taking off from Moscow. As all who care are aware, this summer Mr. Prigozhin led his forces – which by all accounts have been the most effective in furthering Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – in a quickly-extinguished mini-revolt against Russian President Vladimir Putin’s conduct of the conflict. Mr. Prigozhin’s Wagner Group has reportedly also been Russia’s most effective force furthering Russia’s efforts in Africa.

I have heard it speculated that the plane was shot down or that an explosion occurred on board. The cause may never be officially confirmed, since the crash occurred over Russian territory. Given Putin’s track record with those disputing his leadership, I suspect that nobody who thought about it for over, say, a second, thought Mr. Prigozhin had very long to live after his attempted coup was aborted. Most will assume that Putin was behind Mr. Prigozhin’s demise. I have seen former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, obviously an extremely knowledgeable authority, indicate that it was too soon to tell whether Putin was responsible; Mr. McFaul offered that it might have been Putin, or it might have been forces aligned with Mr. Prigozhin’s attempted revolt who were outraged when he backed down to Putin.

A Latin phrase that those of us who are mystery story readers have seen countless times: Cui bono? – Colloquially, Who benefits? With all due and deserved regard for Mr. McFaul’s reservations, my money would be on Putin. I’m confident that Putin believes that rebels can’t run a revolt against an established dictator such as himself without a credible revolutionary leader.

Former Russian World Chess Champion and well-known dissident Garry Kasparov – one of the very few people I follow on Twitter; his rants against Putin and in support of Ukraine are worthy of note – has tweeted that he thinks Putin’s assassination of Mr. Prigozhin is an indication of Putin’s fragility, not strength. Since I’ve had the temerity to disagree with Mr. McFaul, I’ll also take the liberty of respectfully disagreeing with Mr. Kasparov. I consider the main consequence of Mr. Prigozhin’s death to seemingly be the solidification of Putin’s domination over Russia even as the Russian president’s Ukrainian incursion appears an ever-deepening strategic debacle.

Mid-Summer Impressions

Summertime celebrations, activities, and responsibilities have afforded little time during the last month to keep abreast of current events, and brought about what is by far the longest interval between entries in these pages since they began in 2017. I am confident that everybody has survived just fine 😉 . A few impressions as we round the corner into the last month of real summer, at least in the upper Midwest:

As all who care are aware, in mid-July, former President Donald Trump received a so-called “Target Letter” from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecutorial team, indicating that Mr. Trump is the subject of the federal investigation into the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack. It almost certainly portends an indictment of Mr. Trump for his part in inciting the insurrection.

I was obviously never a judge; I never did criminal law; I did very little courtroom work in my career. While I stand ready to be corrected by any of those reading these notes who have oceans more trial experience than I have, if I was the District of Columbia federal judge hearing the insurrection case against Mr. Trump, I’d have to think pretty hard about whether to grant the Trump team’s inevitable motion to significantly delay the trial date. A criminal defendant should be given a fair opportunity to defend him/herself, and since Mr. Trump is now scheduled to defend himself in New York in March against authorities’ state law charges that he criminally falsified business records, he is now scheduled to defend himself in Florida in May against Mr. Smith’s team’s federal charges that he misappropriated and mishandled classified documents, and he is reportedly facing an August indictment in Georgia by Georgia authorities for his efforts to overturn the 2020 Georgia presidential results – a case that will be on its own state court scheduling track – it’s perhaps becoming problematic as to how, in fairness, a trial dealing with insurrection charges against Mr. Trump could be scheduled prior to the 2024 presidential election.

Next: The most recent edition of Foreign Affairs Magazine is entitled, “Tell Me How This Ends – Is there a Path to Victory in Ukraine?” I haven’t read all the pieces, but one addresses all the ways that the war could end up destabilizing Russian President Vladimir Putin and lead to peace. I consider the authors’ premises closer to pipedream than reality. If Putin was going to be deposed, it would most probably have resulted from Yevgeny Prigozhin’s Wagner Group’s short-lived and quickly-quashed revolt (which arose, as far as I could tell, not from any wish by Mr. Prigozhin to end the war but because Mr. Prigozhin didn’t think Putin was providing his Group sufficiently aggressive assistance). Another essay declared the war “unwinnable,” noting that even as Ukraine has launched its counteroffensive, “Russian forces are heavily dug in on the most likely axis of advance in the south.” Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt echoed in the Wall Street Journal earlier this month, “Between the two armies, there are at least 3 miles of heavily mined territory followed by rows of concrete antitank obstacles, with artillery pieces hidden in nearby forests. The Russian military has amassed so much artillery and ammunition that it can afford to fire 50,000 rounds a day – an order of magnitude more than Ukraine. Traditional military doctrine suggests that an advancing force should have air superiority and a 3-to-1 advantage in soldiers to make steady progress against a dug-in opponent. Ukrainians have neither.” (Mr. Schmidt is obviously an expert in technology, not military tactics, but I quote him because he summarizes sentiments I have heard expressed in other quarters.)

Although some have deplored the Biden Administration’s agreement to provide Ukraine with cluster bombs due to the devastating impact that such launched but unexploded devices can have on civilian populations, I tend to give the Administration the benefit of the doubt: other available artillery may be dwindling, and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy seems best able to determine whether or not his people are better served by deploying such weapons on his soil.

One can hope but it seems optimistic to expect that the Ukrainians will make significant headway with their current counteroffensive. (As reported above, the Ukrainians have been directing their efforts at the southwest areas of the conflict zone, presumably in an attempt to obtain secure access to the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea that seems essential if the nation is to survive economically when the conflict ultimately ends.) Current accounts are rife with seemingly eerily-apt references to World War I; Barbara Tuchman noted in The Guns of August that after Germany failed to secure a quick military victory by early autumn 1914, “[Then] came the slow deadly sinking into the stalemate of trench warfare. … [L]ike a gangrenous wound across French and Belgian territory, the trenches determined the war of position and attrition, the brutal, mud-filled, murderous insanity known as the Western Front that was to last for four more years.”

The general consensus among commentators is that the parties should be looking for a negotiated settlement. Various options for achieving such a result have been offered: immediately making Ukraine a member of NATO; having Ukraine and Russia agree to an armistice such as exists in Korea; or having America provide defense assurances to Ukraine such as it provides to Israel. The difficulty with these and any other proposals is plain: even if Ukraine was ready to negotiate a peace arrangement – and it’s not – Putin isn’t going anywhere and he isn’t interested in negotiations.

I’m confident that the Russian President sees what we all see: Russia can’t conquer Ukraine militarily, but it can still win – if former President Donald Trump is re-elected. Putin won’t make meaningful overtures for peace with Ukraine unless and until he sees that neither Mr. Trump nor any other isolationist MAGA has a realistic opportunity to win the U.S. presidency. It is what it is. If counseling President Joe Biden, I’d advise him to continue explaining to the American people why Ukraine’s fight is also a fight for our freedom and begin messaging that it is unlikely that there will be a meaningful opportunity to achieve a negotiated settlement until at least 2025.

Next: Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s recent mental “freeze” – some months after he sustained a head injury in a fall – is extremely troubling. Even putting aside human kindness, the possible reminder to some of President Joe Biden’s potential frailty (the men are the same age), and despite Mr. McConnell’s deplorable manipulation of Senate procedures to achieve an aggressively conservative U.S. Supreme Court (efforts which, ironically, have so far backfired on Republicans politically), I would submit that those concerned about American democracy should hope that Mr. McConnell remains sufficiently possessed of his faculties to continue to lead Senate Republicans through 2024. He clearly has no regard for Mr. Trump, and has used his position to limit MAGA influence in the Senate and to support the Administration’s efforts in Ukraine.

Finally: This week, Mr. Smith filed a superseding indictment in the classified documents case against Mr. Trump, and added Carlos De Oliveira, a Mar-a-Lago property manager, as a defendant. The superseding indictment alleges, “De Oliveira told Trump Employee 4 that ‘the boss’ wanted the server deleted. … De Oliveira then insisted to Trump Employee 4 that ‘the boss’ wanted the server deleted and asked, ‘What are we going to do?'”

Mr. Smith’s team is clearly attempting to pressure Mr. De Oliveira to turn state’s evidence. If Mr. De Oliveira does elect to cooperate with prosecutors and his testimony supports their charges, it will seemingly directly implicate Mr. Trump in a criminal conspiracy. The indictment’s allegations regarding Mr. De Oliveira reminded me of a reference posted here in February, 2018, relating to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Mr. Trump:

“As aptly noted in the movie, You’ve Got Mail, The Godfather is … the I Ching; the sum of all wisdom; the answer to any question.

Not specifically called out in the film, Mario Puzo wrote in the novel:

‘[The fictional Don Corleone] … put layers of insulation between himself and any operational act. When he gave an order it was to [the Consigliore] or to one of the caporegimes alone. Rarely did he have a witness to any order he gave any particular one of them …

Between the head of the family, Don Corleone, who dictated policy, and the operating level of men who actually carried out the orders of the Don, there were three layers, or buffers … each link of the chain would have to turn traitor for the Don to be involved …’

If Mr. Mueller and his team are seeking high-level corroboration of evidence against the President, whether they secure it may come down to whether Mr. Trump read The Godfather, or merely saw the movie …”

If Mr. De Oliveira ultimately confirms the Special Counsel’s allegations, I’ll no longer need to wonder; it will be clear that Mr. Trump only saw the movie. 😉

Post’s Amazon Coverage Wins Polk Award

Set forth below is a link to a Washington Post article reporting that Washington Post reporter Terrence McCoy won the 2022 George Polk Award in environmental reporting for his series, “The Amazon, Undone.” I’m confident that the Post will not begrudge a proud parent the opportunity to excerpt verbatim from its lead paragraphs:

“Washington Post reporter Terrence McCoy’s coverage of ecological destruction, violence and terror in the Amazon rainforest has won a George Polk Award, a top honor in journalism, organizers announced Monday.

McCoy, The Post’s Rio de Janeiro bureau chief, will receive the environmental reporting award for “The Amazon, Undone,” a 2022 series that examined how ruthless deforestation, the policies of former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro and the American appetite for beef are rapidly destabilizing the rainforest, which is one of the planet’s last bulwarks against unchecked global warming.

‘The forest is racing toward what scientists warn is a tipping point, when it can no longer maintain its base ecology and suffers a spreading dieback,’ McCoy wrote in a recap of the project, which took him hundreds of miles through the jungle. …

The Polk Awards, presented by Long Island University since 1949 and named after a CBS correspondent killed during the Greek Civil War, gave out 16 prizes among more than 500 submissions for 2022.”

Many will recall that reporter Dom Phillips was killed this past June during a trip in the Amazon. This is a moment to reflect upon journalists’ vital contributions in so many different contexts across the globe, sometimes with disregard for their own safety.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/02/20/polk-award-terrence-mccoy-amazon-undone/

Out of Africa: Part II

[If one intends to review this post, but has not yet read Part I (which is below), I would start there.]

The choice for this note’s title was deliberate; the best mental preparation I had for the trip was Out of Africa, published in 1937 by Danish Baroness Karen von Blixen under the pseudonym, Isak Dinesen, in which she chronicled her ownership and operation of a coffee plantation outside Nairobi from 1915 to 1931. The book, which bears only passing relation to the 1985 Meryl Streep – Robert Redford film drawn from it, is devoted primarily to Ms. Blixen’s struggles to manage her farm, her relationships and interactions with native Africans, and her love of the flora and fauna of Africa. The book has been called “intricately racist,” but I strongly disagree. Given the evident high esteem Ms. Blixen had for those she called the “Natives,” and the great regard they in turn had for her, the work is simply a product of its times.

There are 42 tribes in Kenya. The largest tribe in Kenya is the Kikuyu; the most renowned and resplendent, in their red plaid tribal garb – and, until recent generations, the most feared and fearsome — are the herders, the Maasai.

“A Maasai warrior is a fine sight. Those young men … are unswervingly true to their own nature, and to an immanent ideal. Their style is not an assumed manner, nor an imitation of a foreign perfection; it has grown from the inside, and is an expression of the tribe and its history, and their weapons and finery are as much part of their being as are a deer’s antlers.”

Out of Africa; Isak Dinesen

Kenya’s population has grown from 2.65 million in Ms. Blixen’s time to 55 million today. Population and urban growth have dramatically shrunk the land upon which the Maasai traditionally roamed with their herds, causing their ancestral livelihood to wither. Some now have no alternative but to support their families by doing tribal dances for tourists in makeshift villages.

Among themselves, Kenyans speak in native languages; as Binyavanga Wainaina noted decades ago in One Day I Will Write About This Place: “Urban Kenya is a split personality: authority, trajectory, international citizen in English; national brother in [Swahili]; and content villager or nostalgic urbanite in our mother [i.e., tribal] tongues.” [Our guide, Manson, advised us during the trip that in Swahili, “Hakuna Matada,” made famous by Disney’s The Lion King, does indeed mean, “No Worries.” 😉 ] Each of the places we stayed offered wonderful accommodations and excellent service by staffs consisting entirely of Kenyans. We came to realize that these service employees are the fortunate ones; by adopting Western manner and command of English, their incomes far surpass that of the average Kenyan. They wore name tags with English monikers such as “Lucy” and “Juliet.” Although businesses catering to foreigners are clearly reluctant to ask customers to deal with African mores, most of the employees themselves were pleased to provide and be called by their native names when we asked for them.

At our last tent camp, I stupidly left some items where they could be damaged by an impending storm. We were out in the park, so we called back to the camp to ask someone to move the items out of the elements. When we returned, I asked the young man who had helped me – whose nameplate said, “Moses,” but who had readily given me (and helped me pronounce) his native name, how to say, “I am an idiot” in Swahili. At first, he blanked; but when he understood that I was referring to myself, he grinned but said, “I can’t tell you that; you’ll have to ask Beth.”

Beth (as with Manson, since I haven’t sought this lady’s permission to refer to her, not her actual name) is the wonderful woman who manages the camp. Manson considers her a role model for his daughters. When I asked her for the Swahili translation for “I am an idiot,” she smiled broadly. “You can’t say that,” she said. “People will laugh at you.” I said, “But I was an idiot, and made the staff work.” She laughed, and gave me the translation, and practiced it with me.

We had the chance to visit with Beth during our last few evenings. She is of the Kikuyu tribe. While playfully teaching me the Swahili translation for other common phrases, she informed us that what I had been referring to “Kenyan names” were actually “tribal names.” She pointedly did not want to be called by her tribal name. Her name was Beth. She indicated that tribal loyalties and customs were holding Kenya back. “The only way we will move ahead as a country is if we think of ourselves as Kenyans, not as tribe members,” she said. English is the common denominator, and accordingly, she felt that English was the language that her fellow citizens should embrace. She was the last we heard repeat what I had heard from a number of Kenyans during our stay: how pleased she was that – finally – there had been a peaceful transfer of presidential power without riots.

So amid extreme poverty for so many Kenyans, I found that many we encountered had hope – in some, despite material conditions at which most Americans we consider “poor” would blanch. They – who have been struggling to maintain a democracy for a mere 60 years – cherished the peaceful transfer of power that we had taken for granted before January 6th; they, such as Manson and Beth, appreciate – obviously better than some of our own American elected officials — that the well-being of their nation lays in putting tribal loyalties aside and focusing on the good of the nation. Their understanding brought home to me that the Capitol riot was not only an insult to America, but to people everywhere who yearn for what we have. Recently-elected Kenyan President William Ruto, who came from humble beginnings but is now rich, won the election on a pledge to provide help for impoverished Kenyans. (Studies of his victory reportedly indicate that voting patterns had not adhered to tribal lines as closely as in the past.) May he make good on his promises. As this is published, the election opponent Mr. Ruto defeated, Raila Odinga, continues to question his loss; may his supporters refrain from taking to the streets to emulate the example of seditionists in America and recently in Brazil, and Kenya’s own recent troubled electoral past.

Beth walked us to our van on the last day. After hugging each of us in turn, she looked up at me. “Of all the Swahili phrases I taught you, the only one you pronounce correctly is, ‘I am an idiot,’” she smiled.

Clearly apropos. We started home. I don’t foresee that we’ll ever make it back to Kenya, but I wish we could. If Kenyans can put aside their ancestral differences and remain on a democratic path, there is certainly light for them at the end of what will unfortunately be a long tunnel.

Out of Africa: Part I

In the first half of September, we traveled to Kenya on Safari. This site would make a poor travel log, so suffice it to say that our adventure offered everything we had hoped for — the opportunity to see innumerable African species, including all of those in the American imagination, in their domain (i.e., the “bush”), while (happily) not having to spend our nights in accommodations that one associates with big game hunters of a century past. If you have the inclination and means to visit Africa, don’t put it off; it will be one of your most memorable experiences.

Kenya became an independent nation in 1963, emerging from what had been (mostly British) colonial rule existing since the late 19^th century. It has been said that since achieving independence, the country’s leadership — a few families have effectively controlled the government — has been too slow to break down the vestiges of colonialism. We arguably saw indications of that throughout our excursion; virtually all of the guests everywhere we stayed were Caucasian or Asian. It is a land where tribal traditions and constitutional government are in search of peaceful accommodation, one of stark contrast between enduring customs and onrushing modernity.

One visiting Kenya cannot help but recognize the material benefits we in America have, and the precious democratic practices we seemingly remain at risk of frittering away.

Kenya had elected a new president, William Ruto, shortly before we arrived. The outgoing president, Uhuru Kenyatta (son of Kenya’s first president), was stepping down after two terms in accord with the Kenyan Constitution. Mr. Ruto’s opponent, Raila Odinga — who had lost notwithstanding an endorsement from Mr. Kenyatta (Mr. Odinga, having lost five presidential elections, is somewhat the Harold Stassen of Kenya) — had appealed Mr. Ruto’s victory to the nation’s highest tribunal; we arrived in the country two days before the tribunal was to decide on his appeal. Kenya has a history of unrest arising from disputed elections; rioting attendant to a 2007 election dispute claimed over 1,000 lives, and lesser disturbances accompanied a challenge to Mr. Kenyatta’s 2017 election. We were aware at the time we arrived that there was some concern throughout the country, despite both candidates’ and Mr. Kenyatta’s pleas for calm, that disturbances might follow any final declaration upholding Mr. Ruto’s victory; however, when his victory was sanctioned, all remained quiet.

Our safari guide was Manson [since I haven’t sought this incredible gentleman’s consent to refer to him, not his real name], about 40. Descended from a father of the Maasai tribe and a mother from the Kikuyu tribe, tribal mores caused Manson to leave his Maasai village in his middle-school years. He was taken in by a Catholic mission, and completed advanced studies under the mission’s auspices. Manson is a naturalist with a specialization in ornithology, and possesses a seemingly-encyclopedic knowledge of the habits of East African birds (which he used as indicators to locate Africa’s celebrated wildlife for us in unexpected parts of the parks). Because of the just-concluded Kenyan presidential election, politics naturally came up early during the trip; Manson observed with satisfaction that his country had finally achieved a transfer of presidential power without riots. He follows international affairs; after he asked me whether I thought America should negotiate with Russia over Ukraine, and I indicated that I then opposed negotiation because I didn’t think it would stop Mr. Putin from continuing to stir unrest among democracies, he immediately responded, “I completely agree.” He was then in the process of building a house – almost unheard of except for affluent Kenyans. He has two daughters, 20 and 14. His elder daughter had recently been awarded a green card to the U.S. through the U.S. Diversity Visa Program (known as the “Green Card Lottery”) and he was thrilled. He said to me, “In America, if you work hard, you can get ahead.” While some born and reared in the U.S. might question the statement, from the perspective of a Kenyan, it is undeniable.

Our excursion took us both north and west of Nairobi to visit the wildlife preserves; it is hard for any American who has never been in a Third World country to imagine life in rural Kenya. While the flora is gorgeous and the soil the rich burnt orange of Utah, Kenyans residing in remote villages have desperately limited means. Manson mentioned how much improved the roads surrounding Nairobi had become during Mr. Kenyatta’s term as president, but outside the city the roads were, to an American, barely passable. (“Were most roads in Kenya like this ten years ago?” TLOML asked as we pounded along a particularly sacroiliac-abusive stretch. “Oh, this is much better,” Manson replied, without any trace of irony.) Shanty hamlets and markets exist on the wayside amid plastic bottles and refuse for which there is no means of disposal. People (including small children), cattle, goats, even camels walk perilously close to vehicles whizzing along the road. Tiny thatched huts (it sounds like a cliché, but it’s not), smaller than almost any room in any American home built in the last century, dot the surrounding fields, housing whole families. There is very little health insurance. Where the roads are reasonably traversable, speed is maintained not by stoplights but by mountainous speed bumps – and at every speed bump, people approach the slowing cars from the side of the road to try to sell produce, water, or souvenirs. (Manson was amused when I suggested that they were “businessmen,” and referred to them as such for the rest of the trip.)

Early in our trip, Manson described how difficult life can be for elementary-school-aged Kenyans, particularly outside Nairobi. There are frequently over 100 in a class, with limited facilities and poorly-paid teachers; many times the schools receiving the tuition fail to pay the teachers, who in turn therefore sometimes demand payment directly from the students and send them away if they cannot comply. (Unexpectedly, grade school children are better dressed than some adults because many schools require uniforms.) Manson indicated that in his early years, he himself had at times been sent home from school because his family lacked the money to pay his teachers. At about the mid-point of our trip, our van broke down between preserves. While Manson called back to Nairobi for assistance, the delay provided the opportunity to walk around (for safety purposes, most time in wildlife preserves is spent in the vehicle) and appreciate the vista. A middle schooler, Sam, walked by and then stopped while we waited by the side of the road. He was stoic, and didn’t speak much English, but it became clear that he understood it perfectly. Random motorists would stop, come over and speak with Manson in Swahili, and look under the hood of our vehicle; sometimes tinkering would go on; more talk would ensue; the engine wouldn’t start; and they would leave, soon followed by other well-meaning, but equally ineffective, Good Samaritans. Sam and I watched this cycle several times. Finally I quietly asked him, “Do you think any of these guys know anything about cars?” For a moment his deadpan disappeared; I got a brilliant smile, and he shook his head. At some break in the (in)action, Manson came over and asked Sam why he wasn’t in school. It turned out that he had been sent home because he couldn’t pay his teacher. Manson was clearly taken back to his own past, and asked how much money Sam needed to be allowed back in school: it was 500KSh – 500 Kenyan shillings. Manson and I split the needed tuition. Before being too struck by our generosity, be aware: at the time, 500KSh amounted to $4.35 – another stark indication as to how far many Kenyans’ material means differ from our own.

To avoid unduly taxing your eyes or your stamina, the remainder of this note will appear in Part II.

On Ukraine Today

My sense – although the impression, even if now accurate, can be dispelled by NATO allies’ future decisive action – is that Ukraine might be starting to slip away.

“Putin knows that unexpected events can and will blow things off course in domestic and foreign policy. … This means he focuses on contingency and adaptive planning to deal with them. … Having back-up plans means learning from past mistakes as well as successes.”

Mr. Putin; Fiona Hill and Clifford G. Gaddy

After initially misunderstanding Ukrainians’ devotion to a Ukrainian state, underestimating Ukrainian grit and determination, grossly overestimating the competence of the Russian military, misjudging NATO unity and resolve, counting on a cold winter to cause Europeans to prioritize Russian fuel over Ukrainian sovereignty, and hoping that vague threats of nuclear weaponry would deter NATO, Russian President Vladimir Putin has adjusted his war strategy to four pillars: holding the Ukrainian territory Russia now controls; terrorizing the Ukrainian population through continuous missile strikes (simultaneously destroying symbols of Ukrainian heritage); transitioning Russia to a wartime footing by mobilizing Russian industry for military production while conscripting a massive number of additional soldiers (i.e., following a centuries-old Russian tradition of feeding untrained Russian bodies into the meat grinder to compensate for Russian officer cronyism and incompetence); and waiting the West out.

Mr. Putin is now literally seeking to grind it out. Evil. But savvy.

For much of the conflict, I consider the United States’ response to have been almost pitch-perfect. The Biden Administration first sought to dissuade Russia from invading Ukraine by publicizing its intelligence on Russian plans and deployments. President Joe Biden then masterfully marshaled NATO unity and action. Thereafter, understandably concerned that the conflict could lead to nuclear war (although those fears currently appear abated), America and its NATO allies have (in then-Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby’s word) “curated” their military assistance to Ukraine – a tit for every Russian tat – an approach designed to maintain a fiction that NATO is not at war with Russia.

The irony is that Mr. Putin maintains no such illusions; he considers NATO to be at war with Russia. You know what? He’s right.

At the time this is typed, NATO allies are divided over whether to and which tanks to provide to Ukraine. Reportedly, the United States doesn’t want to provide its Abrams tanks to Ukraine because … they require a lot of training and need a lot of gas. Germany isn’t yet willing to send its Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine because … it isn’t. (Germany reportedly is willing to let other NATO nations send their Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, and the U.K. is sending 14 of its Challenger 2 tanks.) This follows diddling over whether to and who should provide planes to Ukrainians, diddling over which and how many missile defense systems are suitable for Ukraine (so far, we’ve provided one Patriot system), and hand-wringing over what firepower has too much range to provide to the Ukrainians. (God forbid that they start taking the battle to Russia in Russia, although this might cause some Russians to question Russian media claims about Russia’s success.)

Last week, President of the Council on Foreign Relations Richard Haass made a point that resonated with me: slow escalations rarely work; the enemy simply adapts. He used Vietnam as an example, and although that war otherwise has little in common with the Ukrainian conflict, the analogy is apt. NATO has slowly escalated, and Russia has correspondingly adapted.

It’s time for America and its NATO allies to conceptually and viscerally internalize the fact that although at this point only Ukrainians are actively fighting and dying, NATO is indeed at war (albeit so far conventional) with Russia. Poland understands this reality – it has experienced life under Russian rule – which is why, despite its elected leadership’s increasingly illiberal leanings, it is among the NATO allies most aggressively assisting Ukraine’s defense. Finland and Sweden understand Russia’s voraciousness when it is guided by a KGB soul such as Mr. Putin, which is why they seek NATO membership after decades of reluctance. (The Biden Administration should put maximum pressure on Turkey and Hungary to vote to admit Finland and Sweden to NATO immediately. NATO Treaty provisions are what they are, but how to deal with two states that are now at best quasi-allies is an issue that the Alliance needs to consider.) Once NATO as a whole accepts the reality that it is at war with Russia, the steps that follow largely dictate themselves. In America’s case, I would submit that we should refrain only from providing Ukraine nuclear weaponry and the resources required to help rebuff any Chinese invasion of Taiwan; otherwise, within the confines of the Ukrainian aid package Congress passed at the end of 2022, we should furnish Ukrainians whatever we can that they either know or can be trained how to use.

Our national debt is now approaching World War II levels. I wholeheartedly agree that at some time in the not-too-distant future, we do need to lay a plan to curb our spending and increase our revenues. Given their past support of costly initiatives of former Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump, any protests for fiscal conservatism put forth by Republicans during this Congress will obviously be patently hypocritical, but I would further submit that any such claims asserted by MAGAs in the context of limiting future aid to Ukraine will also amount to a cloak for anti-democratic aims. No matter the size of our debt, this is NOT the time to back off on aid to Ukraine – a position I believe to be shared by sensible members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is frequently compared to British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. During the last year, I have frequently turned to the World War II speeches Mr. Churchill rendered in the months after France fell to the Nazis and before the United States entered the war. It is clear that Mr. Churchill then believed that if Britain could just hold on long enough, America’s entry into the war – with its military and manufacturing resources – would ultimately ensure victory. Mr. Zelenskyy is now nervous and exhausted, and he’s showing it. I am confident that he is acutely aware that in one vital respect, his position is in fact the reverse of Mr. Churchill’s so long ago: since the Russian invasion, although seemingly teetering at times, has not collapsed, it is Mr. Putin that is calculating that if he can just hold out long enough, NATO will lose the will to support Ukraine, and then … Ukraine will be Russia’s.

If Mr. Putin was going to be internally deposed for this Russian military debacle, he already would have been. If he is to be externally judged for this monstrous insult to humanity and international order, that reckoning is a long time off. We and our NATO allies need to grasp that we are at war, quit diddling, and give it all we have – now and into the foreseeable future.

An Early January Potpourri

A series of random thoughts as 2023 begins:

I have heard commentators declare that the U.S. House of Representatives’ Republicans’ antics in their ongoing efforts to elect a Speaker don’t constitute a flaw, but rather a facet, of a vibrant democracy. Although an exchange of clashing viewpoints has been one of the wellsprings of American democracy from the days of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, such is only the case if such differing viewpoints are offered in good faith – i.e., with the sincere intent to select a better leader or reach a better policy approach for the greater good of America. I don’t have any insight into the views or motives of the vast majority of Republican House members who are refusing to vote for U.S. CA Rep Kevin McCarthy for Speaker. I have already indicated in these pages that if a GOP representative, I myself wouldn’t be supporting Mr. McCarthy because he has shown that he doesn’t have the steadfastness for the job. That said, I would submit that there is strong evidence that at least two of Mr. McCarthy’s most vocal opponents, election-deniers U.S. FL Rep. Matt Gaetz and U.S. CO Rep. Lauren Boebert, are simply hyper-partisan, self-promoting provocateurs. I see little to indicate any motive for their current drive to oust Mr. McCarthy beyond personal ambition.

The current Republican (Animal) House dysfunction is troubling on a deeper level. As Mr. McCarthy concedes more and more to the most rabid members of his caucus, how will he – and therefore, we – manage when a crisis needing unanticipated funding and unity inevitably occurs during the next two years? Will the agitators come away from this internecine party battle with the power to prevent a vote on a bill raising the federal debt ceiling, causing the United States to default on its full faith and credit? Will they be able to block additional needed aid to Ukraine, or aid to assist Taiwan, should Mainland China elect to invade the island? Will they hinder the provision of assistance to California if it suffers an earthquake, or to Puerto Rico if it is battered by another devastating hurricane, because they don’t consider these to really be part of their America? Will they fund the Biden Administration’s efforts if we are suddenly hit with another pandemic – or declare the announcement of a new virus merely a hoax? You may dismiss these concerns as unduly alarmist. If so, I hope you’re right.

Next: the situation at the southwest border is human tragedy, a logistical quagmire, and a political nightmare. Immigration has been a visceral issue for Republican voters, and generally a political winner for Republicans, for most of this century. On Thursday, the President announced new approaches that may have value and/or simply be a bandage. I have no substantive solutions to offer for the challenges we face. I would venture this: if Mr. Biden intends to seek re-election, his Administration had better achieve notable improvements to our humanitarian and security challenges at the border this year. If not, immigration may well prove to be the issue that Mr. Biden’s Republican opponent can wield most effectively against him in the upcoming campaign.

Next: I find it ironic that Republican-controlled states’ immediate reflex to oppose anything that the Biden Administration proposes is, in certain areas, helping the Administration either substantively or politically. Republican lawsuits thus far successfully thwarting Administration efforts to dismantle Title 42 – a Trump Administration initiative used to quickly expel immigrants at the southwest border – have, by keeping Title 42 in effect, perhaps prevented even greater politically-damaging border havoc for the Administration. (In an irony within an irony, the Administration’s new border protection measures reportedly expand the practice of immediate expulsion authorized under Title 42 to unsponsored migrants from Nicaragua, Cuba and Haiti.) Likewise, Republican-led states’ efforts to throw out Mr. Biden’s plan to forgive federal student loan debt – no matter what one thinks of the Administration policy substantively – undoubtedly redounds to Mr. Biden’s benefit politically. (The President can justifiably say to all those whose obligations would be forgiven or reduced: “I tried to help you, and they wouldn’t let me.”) Who are those borrowers going to vote for in 2024?

Next: On a human level, all of us who are aware are saddened by the sudden cardiac arrest suffered by Buffalo Bills Safety Damar Hamlin in last Monday night’s NFL football game. As this is typed, Mr. Hamlin’s prognosis is reportedly improving. (I heard some ghoul ask one of Mr. Hamlin’s doctors this week whether he might recover sufficiently to return to the game. Really? That reporter should be made to face an unblocked rush from the San Francisco 49er defensive line.) All hope for Mr. Hamlin’s quick and complete recovery. At the same time, I am perplexed by the calls I hear from some for the NFL to “do something” to prevent afflictions such as that suffered by Mr. Hamlin. All who read these pages are aware that I am an NFL fan. Make no mistake: I believe that the NFL and its owners are much more concerned with protecting the multi-billion colossus they have created than they are with player safety. That said, having watched thousands of NFL tackles in my lifetime, I saw nothing unique or untoward about the collision that stopped Mr. Hamlin’s heart. Assuming that the NFL tests all players for cardiac fitness as part of its initial processes, I don’t know what the NFL could have done before or do now to guard against tragic disorders such as Mr. Hamlin incurred Monday night.

Despite the overwhelming popularity of football in this country – a popularity, whether one likes it or not, which arises in large measure from the game’s ferocity – perhaps we should ban the game due to the physiological and attendant psychological damage suffered by players resulting from repeated head and other reasonably-foreseeable trauma. TLOML and I were always happy that our sons never played the game at any serious level. At the same time, if mine was the voice deciding for all of America whether to keep or ban football, I don’t know which way I would vote. Our citizens voluntarily choose to downhill ski, sky dive, rock climb, bungee jump, and play soccer (which at advanced levels has its own head trauma challenges). People are injured or killed every day riding bicycles. By high school, every football player that chooses to play knows the risk. Even though the average NFL career is short, the NFL annual base salary is over $700,000; the average American salary is under $55,000 a year. Even if possessed in my late teens and early 20’s of the wisdom of Medicare-eligible years and aware of the game’s dangers [and despite lacking the coordination to efficiently tie my shoes 😉 ], would I still have gone into the NFL — to make the kind of money that could form a base of financial security for a lifetime — if I had had the ability? I would have.

Finally: Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan has announced that she will not seek re-election in 2024.

I have mentioned a number of times in these pages that I hope, for the good of my children and grandchildren, that U.S. Transportation Secretary and former South Bend, IN Mayor Pete Buttigieg is someday president of the United States. It has been clear, however, that notwithstanding President Biden’s selection of Mr. Buttigieg as Transportation Secretary – an appointment of an extremely able young politician with a seemingly bright future who withdrew from the 2020 Democratic nomination race (along with U.S. MN Sen. Amy Klobuchar) just in time for Mr. Biden to corral all moderate liberal support and win the nomination – Cabinet experience is not a sufficient background upon which to mount a credible campaign for the presidency. If Mr. Buttigieg wishes to run for the Democratic Party’s Presidential nomination at some point in the future, he will no longer be able to employ the “Exciting Newcomer” lane he used in 2020; he will need a significant position from which to launch his campaign: a Governorship or a U.S. Senate seat. If he can win either office after leaving the Biden Administration, he can bide his time: he will be 42 on election day 2024, which means that he will be viable, from an age perspective, for at least the five presidential election cycles after 2024 – to 2044 [and, judging by the age of our recent major party presidential nominees, perhaps longer 😉 ].

I suspect that Mr. Buttigieg agrees with my assessment that he will need a substantial post if he wishes to mount another campaign for the presidency. I suspect that he agrees with my assessment that no Democrat will be elected a U.S. Senator or Governor in Mr. Buttigieg’s native Indiana for many years to come. I also suspect that he agrees with my assessment that he needs to establish greater rapport with and support in the African American community than he had in 2020 in order to make a viable run. For some months, I thought that he and his husband, Chasten Buttigieg, might move their family from Washington, D.C., commuting distance down to Baltimore, since the term of Democratic Maryland Senator Ben Cardin, 79, will expire in two years.

I was wrong about Mr. Buttigieg’s moving plans. Last summer, the Buttigiegs established their legal residence in Traverse City, MI, Mr. C. Buttigieg’s home town, and registered to vote.

There are a lot of ambitious politicians in Michigan, as there are in all states. Many will consider a campaign for Ms. Stabenow’s seat, and all will consider and call Mr. Buttigieg a carpetbagger if he seeks Michigan Democrats’ U.S. Senate nomination. That said, presidential support would be an advantage in a Senate primary contest; the President has compared Mr. Buttigieg to his own beloved son, Beau; and a President pays his debts.

As former President Donald Trump sometimes says: We’ll see what happens.

On Kevin McCarthy

[At the time this is scheduled, U.S. CA Rep. Kevin McCarthy has failed three times to secure the needed 218 votes needed to become Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.]

I’m flummoxed. We’ve all heard the clichés intoned by commentators: “S/He will do anything to get power.” Or: “S/He will do anything to keep power.” These pronouncements have in recent times frequently been made in reference to Republican officeholders bowing to claims of election fraud they know are false, but are equally applicable to rationalizations by politicians of both parties who understand the proper course but decline to take it to protect their own political careers.

What puzzles me about these phrases: their inclusion of the word, “power.” The groveling in which U.S. CA Rep. Kevin McCarthy has engaged since the November election to try to appease at least 218 members of the U.S. House of Representatives’ Republican Caucus so he can become the Speaker of the House has been so publicly demeaning – to the extent that Mr. McCarthy has reportedly agreed to a rule that would provide any handful within the Republican majority the right to seek his ouster from the Speakership at any time – that it is obvious that he doesn’t really seek power; he won’t have any. He covets the trappings of power that would attend having his name etched into some marble Capitol wall under those of recent House Speakers such as Sam Rayburn, Tip O’Neill, Newt Gingrich, and Nancy Pelosi. No matter what you think of these past Speakers’ respective policy preferences, each was knowledgeable, savvy, and tough.

If – imagine this 😉 – I was a member of the House Republican Caucus, I’d be a hard No on Mr. McCarthy (unless the only alternative was U.S. OH Rep. Jim Jordan, whom I consider at this point to arguably present a greater danger to American democracy than former President Donald Trump). My principal objection to Mr. McCarthy would not be among those raised by House Republicans – a number of whom seek an American Apartheid and a few of whom, if reports are accurate, may have lent support to activities surrounding the insurrection on January 6, 2021 — but because he doesn’t have the fortitude. For months, he should have been telling the recalcitrant members of his caucus to either vote for him, or go … (you fill in the rest), and then walked away.

The Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives is third in line to the presidency of the United States. While some negotiation among any group of ambitious, strong-minded individuals is to be expected, Mr. McCarthy hasn’t grasped that attaining the Speakership by bootlicking would reduce his post to a sham. He apparently lacks the understanding of how to acquire and wield real power, and on this ground alone is unworthy of the position he seeks. Put aside all of the terribly vital issues upon which we generally focus, including the ongoing existential threats of our democracy; put aside the Democrats’ partisan chortling, and any unseemly guilty satisfaction some undoubtedly feel at the Republicans’ disarray; consider only this: If as a result of a devastating terror attack or other tragedy, Mr. McCarthy became President of the United States, do you think Chinese President Xi Jinping or Russian President Vladimir Putin would take him seriously? In their places, would you?