Jerusalem Embassy Afterthoughts

I got up this morning thinking about yesterday’s post regarding the Administration’s move of our Embassy to Jerusalem.  Keeping in mind the first Principle of this site – that anything I enter may well be all haywire – I see nothing conceptually amiss with what I posted … but woke up realizing that it was too antiseptic, too clinical an analysis of the foreign policy factors in play.  The piece failed to address the physical suffering and emotional anguish being visited every day on people in the Mideast – the overwhelming majority of whom simply want to live their lives and raise their families in peace and without want.  It’s hard not to believe that many of those that actively engage in conflicts are guided by many of the same reactions Americans would have if placed in similar circumstances.

While it is likely, regardless of the opening of our Embassy in Jerusalem, that there would have been disturbances along the Gaza Strip on what the Palestinians call “Nakba Day” (the “Day of Catastrophe”), and that these disturbances would have resulted in some number of deaths and injuries, it seems almost certain that the Embassy move exacerbated the Palestinian anger and frustration already existing.  Although – as noted in the earlier post — I don’t see what strategic foreign policy objectives we advanced by moving the Embassy, I most sincerely hope that I’ve grossly misunderstood the situation.  While some reports indicate that a good number of the Palestinian casualties were members of Hamas, others were not.  I want to hope that we are not responsible for additional innocent lives lost or forever marred because of a move made primarily for U.S. domestic political purposes.

Reactions to Moving our Embassy to Jerusalem

I was asked today for reactions to the Trump Administration’s opening of our Embassy in Jerusalem.  Here we go …

One can find statements by Presidents Clinton, G. W. Bush, and Obama, obviously predating the Trump Administration, all expressing a preference for moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.  Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995, calling for the embassy to be moved to Jerusalem by 1999 (this hasn’t been done due to a series of authorized Presidential waivers based on security concerns).  The Senate passed a resolution 90 – 0 last June, affirming the Act and calling upon the President to abide by its provisions.  The Obama Administration’s ambassador to Israel said tonight on PBS that moving the embassy was “appropriate.”  President Trump had pledged during his campaign to make the move.  Sen. Chuck Schumer supports the move.  The President can rightly point out that moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem has traditionally had bipartisan support.

Even so, I think it was a strategic mistake.  Despite the Administration’s claim that moving the embassy will help the peace process, given the general reaction to the move throughout the international community, I’m having trouble seeing how it fulfills any strategic foreign policy objectives:

  • It’s added more gas to the raging fire that is the Middle East. To boot, having the opening on the anniversary of Israel’s establishment unnecessarily added insult to injury for many in the Muslim world.
  • It’s a chip we didn’t need to play. Israel is already absolutely ecstatic about the support it is receiving from the Trump Administration; it’s difficult to see how we can get any warmer support from Israel for our objectives than the Administration has already garnered.
  • A criticism that resonates with me is that we took the action without getting anything for it – such as Israeli acquiescence in a two-state solution with the Palestinians, or Israeli collaboration in providing humanitarian aid for the Palestinians under terrible duress in Gaza.
  • The Wall Street Journal has reported that the move has drawn “repeated condemnation” from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt – three allies that form a primary part of our ballast in maintaining Middle East stability against Iran. (The Obama Administration’s Israel Ambassador also indicated tonight that although these three nations will continue to cooperate with us and Israel because they have greater concern about Iranian aggression than they have care for the Palestinians, the optics of the last few days will make it difficult for these nations to cooperate openly with Israel.)
  • The U.K. and France also oppose the move – adding more tension to a relationship already coarsened by our withdrawal from the Iranian Nuclear Deal.
  • If that wasn’t sufficient, my own pet peeve is that the move has given President Erdogan of Turkey – a de facto dictator who has sufficiently cozied up to Russia and Iran lately that I consider Turkey an uncertain NATO ally at best — a chance to condemn Israel and side with U.K. and France against us.

Suffice it to say, it’s not an action I would have taken.  One would have to be pretty dewy-eyed not to believe that domestic political motivations played a large part in the decision, helping the President to both reinforce the allegiance of parts of his base committed to the move while perhaps softening the opposition of some of those confronting him; but those musings are best kept for Noise about his political prospects that we’ll undoubtedly be making in the coming months …

The Haspel Confirmation Dilemma

As I’ve previously indicated in these pages, when considering whether a Presidential nominee should be confirmed by the Senate, I follow a pretty simple two-factor analysis (which, admittedly, is ne’er followed in the current hyper-partisan environment):  Is the nominee objectively qualified for the position?  If so, is there any other objective factor that should nonetheless disqualify him/her from the position for which s/he has been nominated (e.g., prior criminal conviction, demonstrated drug abuse problem, etc.)?  Since the Constitution provides our President the power to nominate whom s/he considers appropriate, I don’t believe that a nominee’s subjective leanings (e.g., whether s/he supports or opposes abortion rights, whether s/he is too soft or too hardline in foreign policy) should be part of the equation.  Accordingly, I believe that Judge Garland should not only have received a hearing, but – absent unreported information coming to light – should also have been confirmed by the Senate, and that it was appropriate that Judge Gorsuch and Secretary of State Pompeo received confirmation.

That said, one of the many reasons that I’m glad that I’m not a sitting Senator is that if I was, I would have to consider whether to vote to confirm Gina Haspel as CIA Director.

Ms. Haspel easily passes the first hurdle; she’s been called the most qualified nominee to head the CIA in the Agency’s history, and has received what USA Today has referred to as “glowing accolades” from former Agency directors that have served in both parties’ administrations.  However, Ms. Haspel’s nomination is the rare one that seems – at least for me – to require careful reflection as to whether the appointment should be rejected due to an “other objective factor” as I used the phrase above.  It’s undisputed that Ms. Haspel ran a CIA “black site” that conducted waterboarding in the wake of 9/11; that she thereafter participated in the destruction of videotapes of questionable interrogations (although she was cleared of inappropriate behavior by a subsequent internal CIA inquiry); and that although she has testified that she supports the Congressional ban on and pledged not to conduct the kinds of activities that she and the CIA conducted after 9/11, she didn’t explicitly characterize those activities as immoral.  Given her record, does Ms. Haspel possess the appropriate moral compass to serve in the position that – along with the presidency itself – is arguably the most consistently subject to the harshest morally conflicting pressures?

It has been widely reported that Sen. John McCain, notwithstanding his warm words for Ms. Haspel’s service to our country over the past three decades, considers Ms. Haspel’s unwillingness to call the CIA’s activities immoral “disqualifying” for the CIA directorship.

I have the deepest respect for Mr. McCain in the realm of foreign affairs.  His sentiments, given his own experience as a POW, are understandable.  At the same time, former CIA Director Michael Hayden, in his book, The Assault on Intelligence, called Ms. Haspel’s earlier selection for the Agency’s Deputy Director under Mr. Pompeo an “inspired choice” due to the high regard Ms. Haspel enjoys among CIA personnel.  Mr. Hayden – who makes clear in his book that he is no admirer of President Trump – argues that those (which would include him) that played a part in the government’s “electronic surveillance, metadata collection, renditions, detentions, interrogations, and targeted killings” have a greater sensitivity to lines that should not be crossed than those that didn’t have to face the moral questions implicit in the conduct of such activities.  It’s a point – although one readily subject to skepticism.

I am less concerned about Ms. Haspel’s unwillingness to condemn the CIA’s past activities, given her pledge not to carry on such activities during her directorship.  I consider it a manner of establishing leadership.  I agree with a premise advanced by others that one does not build esprit de corps in an organization that one intends to lead by trashing the group – particularly if one’s comments, given one’s record, are certain to be viewed by the organization as hypocritical means to advance one’s own career.  Interestingly, Mr. Hayden also states that he viewed Ms. Haspel’s appointment as Deputy Director to be “pitch perfect” because it meant neither a repeat nor repudiation of the Agency’s past.

At the same time, I am concerned with her acknowledged participation in the destruction of the interrogation videotapes.  Can she be trusted?  The only responses I’ve seen to these concerns are that she was following orders (so were Nazi enablers) and was found blameless for the inappropriate operation in the subsequent CIA inquiry (perhaps a whitewash for a loyal and diligent employee).  I’m not sure that these would be sufficient responses for me under many circumstances, although I balance this unease against the ringing affirmations of both Leon Panetta and Mr. Hayden that Ms. Haspel will be willing to “speak truth to power” if required to do so in her interactions with the President.

After all of this “on the one hand, on the other hand” (sounding more than a bit like Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof):  I reluctantly support Ms. Haspel’s nomination.  My reasons are many, albeit all simple:  the confidence of former Directors that she will speak truth to a President who, in my opinion, has insufficient respect for the rule of law; her undisputed qualifications and knowledge of the Agency; her willingness, based upon past experience, to disavow any return to the activities that she engaged in post-9/11; her steadfastness in being unwilling to cast aspersions upon the CIA’s post-9/11 activities to further her own career; the high regard that the professionals in a vital, but now beleaguered, part of our national defense have for her; the fact that almost anyone that the President nominates in her stead will probably be less qualified, have less respect for and from the Agency, and be more prone to Presidential pressure; and the fact that we, frankly, need someone tough to lead the CIA.  We confront bad state and non-state actors across the globe.  Although most of us live in an ivory tower, the fact remains [now, sounding like Jack Nicholson’s Col. Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men  😉 ]:  we need someone who is willing to fight to protect our ivory tower in places and ways that we don’t go to or know about.  Although there is no one alive I respect more than Pope Francis, he wouldn’t be a good fit for the CIA Directorship.  Ms. Haspel is.

I concede that there is more than an element of faith in the expectation that someone that admittedly participated in activities many call torture and in the destruction of videotapes of inappropriate interrogations will be the speaker of truth, guardian of appropriate interrogation practices, and the protector of the rule of law.  Berate me if you wish.  If dilemmas had perfect answers … they wouldn’t be dilemmas.  Thus, although I would vote for Ms. Haspel, I’m glad I don’t have to …

George Will and the Positioning of Mike Pence

Having just brought the site to the attention of a lot of family and friends, I intended the next post to be on some weighty public affairs topic that retirees have time to ponder.  However, a good friend called my attention to a piece that George Will just did in The Washington Post on Vice President Mike Pence:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-no-longer-the-worst-person-in-government/2018/05/09/10e59eba-52f1-11e8-a551-5b648abe29ef_story.html?utm_term=.d028269e0169

Mr. Will’s piece is, at bottom, a visceral lament at the disintegration of the traditional Republican Party, but he does it through a blistering denunciation of the Vice President’s slavish behavior toward and in support of the President.  Although I love words, Mr. Will’s use of “oleaginous,” “toadyism,” “obsequiousness,” and “lickspittle” all in the introductory paragraph took some doing ;).   (For those that remember William F. Buckley, Jr., I’m wondering whether even he ever used “oleaginous”).

As for the Republican Party, Mr. Will’s despair arises from what is apparent to all:  for good or ill, the party’s traditionalists have abdicated to the President and the party’s populists.  (In a future post, we’ll make Noise addressing whether the party’s traditionalists and populists actually even constitute one coherent organization any longer, and the ramifications of that).

As to Mr. Pence, I made Noise last January on the Vice President’s kowtowing toward the President, supposing that Mr. Pence understands that, as with any Vice President, his primary duty is to ready himself to be President, and speculating that given the hyper-partisan circumstances existing in our country today, he and his intimates had spent time calculating whether he will better be able to smoothly ascend to the presidency “if the time comes” by now adhering closely to the President or by putting some daylight between them.  (He is the one member of the Administration that the President can’t fire for disloyalty.)  I concluded that he had decided that if he needs to assume power, the transition will be smoother if he now clings to the President.

Mr. Will’s venting of spleen was undoubtedly emotionally satisfying, and to a certain extent aligns with my own sentiments; however, neither of us has the responsibility of being one step away from the Presidency.  Here’s hoping that Mr. Pence and his team have indeed carefully considered the factors involved if he has to assume the presidency, and have chosen the wisest course by having him so fawningly support the President.  As time passes, I confess that I’m giving less credence to the approach he’s adopted.  Americans like a President to be strong.  Nobody of any political stripe will follow a bootlicker [perhaps the only word of the type that Mr. Will didn’t use  ;)].

General Principles

This site was spawned in October, 2017, from my overriding interest in public affairs [as well as in the Catholic Church and the Green Bay Packers 😉 ].  Anyone viewing this knows how I relish reading and talking about the listed categories, and that I love to write (reducing thoughts to writing also helps illuminate the gaps in one’s thinking on a subject).  My original notion was to record my thoughts on one long Word document; a number of our family and friends kindly indicated that they enjoy our conversations on these topics and encouraged me to maintain a blog instead.  This site will be just words — no visuals, sound or the like — because I have neither the aptitude for nor the interest in adding them.

There are no highfalutin designs for this blog.  A good friend of ours – who sometimes agrees with my pontifications — suggested (a bit tongue-in-cheek) “McCoy’s Noise” as the site name; we immediately loved it because it was catchy, unique, and – most importantly – it conveys what is intended to be the site’s predominant spirit:  that we not take ourselves too seriously.  It’s fairly doubtful than any earthshaking insights will emanate from here.  This is to have fun while recognizing that any content will simply be part of the crescendo of commentary crossing our nation and world every minute.

Although I invite anyone to enter a comment (which, for the uninitiated, is done by clicking on the given post’s title and then scrolling to the comment box which appears at bottom of the post), there are two rules that I intend to cover all content of this site:

  1. That anyone entering content (and this absolutely applies to me) needs to do so with the internal awareness that whatever s/he is asserting, no matter how fervently held, may be … ALL HAYWIRE.

 

  1. That concepts be expressed in a civil tone. Respect needs to trump fervor.  Disagreements need to be expressed agreeably.  I do my best to maintain the measured (many would say, “boring”) tone of op-ed pieces in major newspapers.  There are limits – for example, I see no way to charitably describe the sentiments of marchers wearing white sheets, carrying torches and chanting Nazi slogans – but I expect such instances to be pretty rare.  A comment will never be deleted because the commenter takes issue with the substance of something I’ve posted (as like as not, s/he, not I, will be right); comments that are venomous or disrespectful in tone or language – even if they support what I’ve posted — will be removed.

Just as Seinfeld did a “Show About Nothing,” this is very likely the “Blog That Makes Nobody Happy.”  I am more conservative than my ardently liberal friends, and more liberal than my staunchly conservative friends.  We’re all aware of the studies showing that people gravitate to sources that reinforce their own views.  I consider the toxic tribalism that has overtaken us to be the single greatest threat to our wellbeing as a nation.  Although I abhor President Trump’s tone and disagree with the vast majority of his policies, as of this writing I believe his actions are a major cause of the movement we’ve recently seen on the Korean Peninsula.  Likewise, although I have the utmost respect for President Obama as a person, I consider his second term foreign policy to have been largely a failure.

From time to time, there will be periods in which I make few posts.  It won’t be because I’ve lost interest in the blog, or the subjects covered; it’ll be because I’m engaging in other activities (or getting chores done at the behest of TLOML).  We need to manage technology, not let it manage us.  I would suggest that it’s not in the best interest of any of us to spend too much personal time in front of a screen.  There are a number of books that address this; we may make some Noise on this in the future :).

Stormy Exhaustion

As the liberal talking heads yammer on about the latest twists and turns in the Stormy Daniels tale brought about by Rudy Giuliani’s recent utterances, and muse whether Mr. Giuliani’s statements expose President Trump to or help exonerate him from charges that he violated campaign finance laws, I find that … I don’t care.  I would suggest that Mr. Trump’s media critics don’t yet realize that with regard to this aspect of the ongoing Trump Saga, the President, by accident or design (a phrase I use a lot regarding the President’s actions), has out-maneuvered them.

Although I strive to maintain civility while making Noise, certain facts are … facts.  These are three:  Mr. Trump is an admitted philanderer, takes endless liberties with truth, and exults in boorish behavior.  An additional fact so true that it has become cliché:  the vast majority of his followers – who themselves try to be faithful, truthful, and mannerly – don’t approve of his behaviors, but excuse them because they support his themes.

With all the back-and-forth regarding Ms. Daniels, Mr. Trump has acclimated us to their tryst.  I suspect that if you asked an upstanding elderly Evangelical Grandmother, after she’d had a sip of Southern Comfort, whether she thought that the President had a relationship with Ms. Daniels, she’d say, “Of course he did, dear.”  The Rubicon of public perception on Mr. Trump’s amorous forays was probably crossed with the Access Hollywood tape, but the various threads of the Daniels affair have trickled in at a pace that has anaesthetized us such that any charges against the President arising from it will be disregarded as ticky-tack fouls.  I confess that I don’t consider this type of campaign finance violation, even if established, to be sufficient standing alone to warrant his removal from office.  (I further confess that I am disappointed that my own standards have apparently degraded such that I feel so.)

[An aside:  one person for whom the Daniels affair is certainly relevant is Mrs. Trump.  Unless she is more dedicated to the President than her public body language makes it appear, if advising her I would suggest that she seek competent divorce counsel to determine whether she can legally and effectively indicate to the President that she is going to very publicly leave him unless he (1) now deposits a very tidy sum in an individual account in her name, (2) tears up whatever prenuptial agreement the couple has, and (3) executes a new agreement providing that if they ever enter divorce proceedings, the deposited sum would not be taken into account in the property settlement and (most importantly) that he would not contest her right to sole custody of their son.]

I would offer that except for Ms. Trump, we as a people should not allow the circumstances involved in Mr. Trump’s amorous peccadillos to become entangled with matters that would warrant his removal from office if appropriately established:  use of his position to obstruct justice; knowing collaboration (directly, or through knowledge of collaborative activities by members of his campaign team) with agents of the Russian government to affect the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election; or commission of crimes before he was in office that can be used by the Russian government to influence his conduct of the presidency (e.g., the laundering of money for Russian interests in violation of then-existing U.S. sanctions).

Until the fruits of the Mueller investigation are brought to the public, we wait.  But let’s have a little less Stormy.  Please.

The Fundamental Reason to Stay in the Iran Nuclear Deal

If I understand the reporting correctly, the decision actually looming for President Trump on May 12 is a procedural one:  whether to continue waivers of some of the U.S. sanctions on Iran effected as a result of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the actual title of the agreement limiting Iranian nuclear activity) (the “JCPOA”).  Although there may be a question whether the U.S. will, from a technical standpoint, actually be withdrawing from the JCPOA if the President allows the waivers to lapse, Iran is clearly indicating that that it will deem any reinstitution of sanctions to be a violation of the arrangement, and that it will be free to renew the nuclear-related activity from which it has apparently abstained in accordance with the terms of the deal.

Whether the JCPOA is a “good deal” or a “bad deal” will be debated for decades to come.  I absolutely lack the acumen to venture a reasoned opinion, although it did seem to me a bit Pollyannaish to think that Iran, with a heritage dating back to the Persian Empire, a tradition of seeking influence beyond its borders, and a current established record of state-sponsored terrorism, would mellow sufficiently during the operative term of the arrangement such that it wouldn’t take the steps necessary to become a major nuclear threat as the restrictions wore off.  More importantly, two Americans who have my deepest respect in the realm of foreign affairs – Henry Kissinger and John McCain — expressed serious reservations about the wisdom of the deal before it was executed.

That said, all reports indicate that the international inspectors charged with monitoring Iran’s JCPOA compliance currently consider Iran to be in compliance.  Absent any evidence that Iran has violated the terms of the JCPOA, I would assert that it will be the gravest of errors if the President takes actions that result in the degradation or dissolution of the agreement.  Although commentators supporting the arrangement have come up with a raft of strategic and practical considerations why a de facto withdrawal from the deal is bad for the U.S., my basis is more fundamental:  Good deal or bad, we agreed to it.  It doesn’t matter, in this context, if we should have held out for permanent prohibitions on Iran’s nuclear-related activities, if Iran has types of non-nuclear weapons we consider significant threats, or if Iran is engaging in behaviors we don’t like, etc., etc., etc.  While we should move aggressively through other means to thwart Iran’s untoward activities outside the scope of the JCPOA, if Iran is sticking to the terms of the JCPOA, we should.  We gave our word.  It’s that simple.

2018 Packer Draft: After Day Two

To start with the positive [which one of our sons says I never do when it comes to Packer drafts 😉 ]:  It certainly appears that Brian Gutekunst and his team are as focused on the Packers’ weakness at cornerback as I habitually am, and the Packers seem to be getting good marks from most commentators for selecting Jaire Alexander and Josh Jackson.

Now, to revert to my customary form 🙂 … at 5-foot-10¼, Mr. Alexander seems to have a mountain to climb (figuratively, and, against some of the NFL’s sizeable receiving threats, literally) to avoid ending up as another Terrell Buckley and Ahmad Carroll (for those with shorter memories, two shorter corners selected in the first round by GB who never lived up to the hype).  I’ve seen it said, “Heart is more important than hype,” and while I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment for life generally, all the heart in the world isn’t going to be enough for a corner under 5’11” against the likes of receivers such as (to pick memorable examples from the past) Calvin Johnson, Randy Moss, and Terrell Owens.  Mr. Gutekunst must be projecting Mr. Alexander to be his slot corner, and Mr. Jackson to be someone who will be able to take over after learning from Tramon Williams (I confess a fondness for Tramon; great to have him back, even if he is now a bit long in the tooth.)  Let’s hope.

An observation:  if I was Quinten Rollins, I’d have my bags packed (Mr. Rollins was another corner who was ballyhooed for his athleticism who has never really matured in the way GB obviously hoped).

Another observation:  by ignoring edge rushers with the first two picks and selecting ILB Oren Burks in the third round rather than an edge rusher, Mr. Gutekunst and his team have clearly made the bet that they can get a quality 2018 out of Clay Matthews and Nick Perry, and, based upon what the staff must have seen in practice, that if/when one of these two injury-prone players go down, Vince Biegel (picked in last year’s draft by Ted Thompson rather than T. J. Watt; another sore point, given Mr. Watt’s stellar 2017) will — having gotten over his injuries — be an impact contributor.  Let’s hope some more.

On we march!

Letter to WSJ Editor, re: Sen. Hatch’s “Protect Mueller, but Not Like This”

Ever persistent, I just emailed the following Letter to the Editor to The Wall Street Journal in response to Sen. Hatch’s cited article:

While asserting in “Protect Mueller, but Not Like This” (Opinion, April 25), that a bill being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee to constrain the president from firing special counsel Robert Mueller is unconstitutional, Sen. Orrin Hatch indicated in several ways that he believes that Mr. Muller’s investigation should be allowed to run its course.  Mr. Hatch went so far as to say that if the president dismisses Mr. Mueller, it would “trigger … possibly even impeachment.”  He concluded with a ringing affirmation that the rule of law cannot be protected by “… violating the supreme law of the land.”

About 20 years ago, conservative commentator Ann Coulter argued in one of her books that the Founding Fathers did not consider grounds for impeachment in the American system to be limited to legally criminal behavior, and that the standard was simply that the official “behave amiss.”  Sen. Hatch is presumably as aware of these authorities as Ms. Coulter.  The senator’s expressions would have had a greater ring of sincerity – and potentially a greater impact on the president’s behavior — if he had concluded his essay by stating that if President Trump does dismiss Mr. Mueller without cause, Mr. Hatch will vote to impeach Mr. Trump if an article of impeachment citing the dismissal comes before the Senate while Mr. Hatch remains a member.