;
Back from Tybee, much to comment on and will do my best in the ensuing week.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Islamists, drone on and on. (See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Tom Sowell and public oath of of office: "US Senator Oath of Office
Tom Sowell and public oath of of office: "US Senator Oath of Office
“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
So .... dear Senators .... do you support and defend the Constitution?
If a SCOTUS nominee who wants to uphold the Constitution makes you nervous, pardon me if it makes me nervous about you.
From Thomas Sowell."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fundraising can lead to shooting. Just matter of time? (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Two sides to the coin.
My friend and fellow memo reader has recovered and is back to writing. (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When a justice/judge puts on their black robe it symbolically indicates they have rid themselves of their own biases and will interpret the law objectively and render a decision based upon facts and apply the law according to past judicial decisions.
It does not mean they are seeking their desired outcome and are engaged in applying some self determined theory to justify their desired conclusion.
Democrats prepared themselves to denounce any selection Trump made before he announced his nominee in keeping with their tradition of smearing candidates no matter their qualifications and judicial temperament.
Democrat obstructionism will do them in once again because they are blinded by their hate.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
I will be writing a memo a few days from now about Trump, the political obsession of Democrats to demonize him because of his personna and their inability to swallow Hillary's loss s well as comments about our ship of state and how far it has drifted from The Founding Father's intent as expressed in that pesky document called our Constitution.
Meanwhile I thought these two articles made a lot of sense. (See 4 and 4a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I will be writing a memo a few days from now about Trump, the political obsession of Democrats to demonize him because of his personna and their inability to swallow Hillary's loss s well as comments about our ship of state and how far it has drifted from The Founding Father's intent as expressed in that pesky document called our Constitution.
Meanwhile I thought these two articles made a lot of sense. (See 4 and 4a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
The Islamic State and Drones: Supply, Scale, and Future Threats
The Islamic State is a group known for doing things a bit differently, for its capacity for innovation, and for its many ‘firsts.’ Two of those ‘firsts’ happened within months of each other. The first occurred in October 2016 when the group used a bomb-laden drone to kill, after the explosive hidden within the drone killed two Kurdish peshmerga soldiers who were investigating the device. Another ‘first’ happened in January 2017 when the Islamic State released a propaganda video that showed nearly a dozen examples of the group releasing munitions on its enemies from the air with a fair degree of accuracy via quadcopter drones it had modified. And it wasn’t long before the group’s bomb-drop capable drones would go on to kill, too.
After reaching a high point in the spring of 2017, the scale of the Islamic State drone threat—like many other dimensions of the group and its power—has already been significantly degraded. A surprisingly little amount of analytical attention, however, has been given to how the Islamic State was able to pull off its drone feats and bring its program to scale in a relatively short amount of time.
This report seeks to address this gap by evaluating the main factors that helped the Islamic State to effectively use modified commercial drones as weapons. It also highlights some of the broader threat and policy implications associated with the Islamic State’s pioneering use of drones, to include how the group—and its actions—could serve as an inspiration or model for other types of actors, to include nation-states or proxy groups that are developing their own hybrid warfare capabilities and strategies.
About the CTC
The Combating Terrorism Center is an independent, privately funded, research and educational institution located in the Department of Social Sciences at the United States Military Academy, West Point. The Center is uniquely situated at the nexus of theory and practice, which enables it to serve as a focal point and an independent voice on terrorism and counterterrorism strategy within the government as well as the academic community.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)When Does the Shooting Begin?
by Erick Erickson
Both men had serious mental issues. But both were provoked by extreme rhetoric from the left. Progressives once claimed Republicans were racist. Now they claim Republicans are racist killers who need to be stopped. According to Democrats, Republicans attempted to kill people through passing tax cuts, repealing Obama era net neutrality regulations, merely considering the repeal of Obamacare, and now by the President nominating Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
All of this is just hyperbole designed to motivate a political base and fundraise. But this is the world in which a man attempted the mass assassination of Republican members of Congress inspired by similar rhetoric. And things have gotten far worse since then.
2)When Does the Shooting Begin?
by Erick Erickson
The Democrat rhetoric may be about fundraising, but some of their base is starting to believe it.
Each time Republicans do something Democrats do not like, Democrats escalate their rhetoric. The right is not immune from this, but the right is in power right now, so conservatives have less with which to drive fear.
After the Southern Poverty Law Center declared the Christian based Family Research Council a hate group intent on harming gay rights, Floyd Lee Corkins walked into the Council’s offices with Chick-fil-a sandwiches and a gun intent on murdering the employees and stuffing their mouths with the sandwiches. Also a fan of the Southern Poverty Law Center and its anti-Christian and anti-Republican rhetoric, James Hodgkinson took seriously the Democrat and progressive left rhetoric that Republicans would kill people by repealing the Affordable Care Act. He drove to a baseball field and attempted a mass assassination of Republican members of Congress.
Both men had serious mental issues. But both were provoked by extreme rhetoric from the left. Progressives once claimed Republicans were racist. Now they claim Republicans are racist killers who need to be stopped. According to Democrats, Republicans attempted to kill people through passing tax cuts, repealing Obama era net neutrality regulations, merely considering the repeal of Obamacare, and now by the President nominating Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
We are already at a point where progressive protestors are showing up at the homes of Trump administration employees. White House staff, members of Congress, Fox News personalities, and other notable conservatives are getting harassed and thrown out of restaurants. A random sixteen-year-old in San Antonio, TX was assaulted in a restaurant last week for wearing a “Make America Great Again” cap.
Democrats have now convinced a good portion of their base that Russia stole the 2016 election and that Russia is trying to steal the 2018 election as well. In fact, some Democratic consultants are already warning that Democrat leaders may be suppressing their vote by saying Russia is going to steal the election.
Democrats are increasingly vocal they think Republicans in Congress are doing Russia’s bidding. They view Donald Trump as an authoritarian figure waiting for just the right moment to suspend elections and impose a dictatorship. Hollywood Director Josh Whedon declared merely considering Kavanaugh’s nomination would create the first American dictatorship.
On Independence Day, “The First Purge” came out in theaters. The movie posits that the National Rifle Association backed a coup that put a dictatorship in power in the United States. Democrats consider the group a terrorist organization that Republicans show fealty too. They also believe Immigration and Customs Enforcement is a terrorist organization that should be abolished.
In the twenty-four hours after President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared Kavanaugh would be “a destructive tool on a generation of progress for workers, women, LGBTQ people, communities of color [and] families” and that he would “radically reverse the course of American justice [and] democracy.” Yale law students declared people would die because of Kavanaugh. NBC News journalists spread, as news, a false rumor that Anthony Kennedy negotiated his retirement contingent on Kavanaugh’s appointment.
To believe Democrats, voting no longer matters because Russia is stealing the elections; Republicans are doing the bidding of a terrorist group; another terrorist group runs part of the government forcibly separating children from their parents; Republicans are letting corporations kill Americans; Anthony Kennedy is ensuring Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court to protect the NRA, Christian fundamentalists, and a President who should otherwise be indicted; and the system is rigged. The Democrats’ call to action is “stop this.”
How long before more Hodgkinsons believe the dystopian picture painted by the Democrats? The Russians are in charge, voting no longer matters, the system is rigged, and the Supreme Court is now a tool of a would-be dictator. It is only a matter of time before “stop this” leads to “shoot them.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
Balancing dangers and opportunities
| ||
| ||
| IIsiPPho | ||
Photo: Prime Minister Netanyahu with Nikki Haley, United States Ambassador to the United Nations
On the negative side, the ongoing escalation of anti-Semitism, especially in Europe (and in the U.K. which could elect an anti-Semitic prime minister), detrimentally affects the quality of life for most Jews. Children and teens are particularly exposed to the vicious, blatant Jew-hatred they encounter at school and on the campus. Despite occasional lip service to the contrary, most European governments do not conceal their contempt for Israel and their foreign policies and voting records at the United Nations highlight the absence of any modicum of moral compass or ethics. Nothing illustrates this better than the reaction of most of the world (with the exception of the U.S. and Australia) to Israel’s measures to defend its borders from incursions by Hamas terrorists and rocket attacks. To depict Israel’s efforts to defend itself as disproportionate – to describe mobs incited to penetrate Israel (often employing children as human shields) and seeking to murder indiscriminately as “peaceful demonstrators” – can only be called obscene, especially as the evidence of their attacks are on the public record. Not a single country in the world would have responded with the restraint displayed by Israel. The behavior of the Palestinian Authority has deteriorated from bad to worse with the ailing Mahmoud Abbas and his acolytes descending to levels of anti-Semitism that would have made the Nazis proud. In addition to these negative factors, we have substantial sections of American Jewry, especially from the Reform and Conservative movements, whose rabid hatred of their president has led them to distance themselves from – or even condemn – Israel. In fact, polls showed that 42% of American Jews even opposed moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. Further evidence of this distressing trend was the graduation ceremony of the Reform movement’s Hebrew Union College, which invited as its guest speaker Michael Chabon, a viciously anti-Israel Pulitzer prize winner who concentrated on two issues: excoriating Israel, which he accused of committing the most grievous injustices he had ever encountered, and urging his audience to promote intermarriage rather than union between Jews. These trends are also reflected on the broader Jewish political level where the Anti-Defamation League, the once respected apolitical body whose mandate was to combat anti-Semitism, today aggressively seeks to slander U.S. President Donald Trump and frequently criticizes Israel. The Democratic Party has become radicalized with the emergence of anti-Israeli agitators รก la Senator Bernie Sanders, whose influence is steadily increasing. The primary election defeat of Rep. Joe Crowley, the Democratic caucus chairman and a firm supporter of the Jewish state, was a significant blow to pro-Israel forces. Jewish voters were not dissuaded from supporting his opponent, the relatively unknown candidate, 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has made no secret of the fact that she is hostile to Israel. She is affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America, which endorsed her and which supports the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. The situation for Jews on college campuses has worsened and many of the anti-Jewish and pro-BDS agitators are led by fringe Jews, often in conjunction with radical Arabs and far-left extremists. The above summary is nightmarish. But in this gloom, there is also sunlight. Israel has never been as successful as it is today. Although Israelis are exasperated with corruption and the multiple allegations against the Netanyahus, polls show that were an election to take place now, Benjamin Netanyahu would be re-elected as head of a strong coalition government. Support for his Likud party has escalated to heights not seen by any party in decades. Despite the frenzied internal debates, the people of Israel today are more united than ever since the massive chasm created by the adoption of the ill-fated Oslo Accords. Most recognize that under the present Palestinian leadership, a two-state policy would create a terrorist state and provide a potential launching pad against Israel for Iran. There is an overwhelming desire not to be an occupier (even though most Palestinians live under their own autonomy), but most Israelis agree that separation must address the overriding condition of guaranteed security. In the wider U.S. population, there is stronger support for Israel than there has ever been, with the evangelical Christians enthusiastically supporting Israel. For the first time in U.S. history, the administration under Trump has made it clear that Israel and the U.S. are true allies that can count on each other’s support at all levels. The decision to relocate the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem was of enormous symbolic importance, as has been Ambassador Nikki Haley’s strident lambasting of the hypocrites at the U.N. who viciously employ double standards against Israel. In addition, unlike his predecessor, Barack Obama, Donald Trump does not refer to the anti-Semitic PA leader Abbas as a moderate. He has made it clear that an institution which gives over $4 million per annum from its foreign aid grants to finance, pay stipends to and incentivize terrorists cannot be considered a partner for peace. The Trump peace plan soon to be announced will probably fail because the conflict is not about real estate. The core issue is that the PA and Hamas are utterly determined to bring an end to Jewish sovereignty in the region. In this context, the U.S. decision to reinstate sanctions on Iran – which Trump considered on the brink of becoming a nuclear threshold state – was extremely positive. It may, in time, bring about regime change as the Iranian economy could implode. Netanyahu’s relationship with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, a former KGB officer, is extraordinary. Based on his childhood experiences, Putin has a liking for Jews. Considering the long history of Soviet and Russian anti-Semitism, his warm relationship with Netanyahu and Israel is remarkable and unprecedented. Without Russian coordination, the IDF could not have effectively destroyed key Iranian targets in Syria. Putin has also supported Israel’s demand that the Iranians keep their distance from the Israeli border. In addition, Israel has developed an important relationship with India and is heavily engaged in trade with China. Netanyahu has also established relations with many African, Latin American and Southeast Asian countries. While the Western Europeans still display bias and are increasingly susceptible to pressure from their vastly expanded Muslim constituencies, the relationship with the East European countries is strengthening. Although there is little publicity, Israel is now enjoying unofficial liaisons with the Saudis and Gulf states and allegedly exchanging intelligence. This is a truly incredible reversal of the isolated Israel of a decade ago. Israel is a mini-military superpower, successfully deterring the Iranians and their surrogates from embarking on a war in which they could be defeated by Israel’s military prowess. Israel is also an economic powerhouse with consistently amazing innovations in the high-tech and medical fields which attract entrepreneurs from all over the world. In addition, Israel is a world leader in water recycling, successfully overcoming its own drought conditions and providing assistance to other countries. And finally, Israel has discovered gas and will become an exporter of energy which will further strengthen its global links. These positive factors more than offset the negative elements referred to above. It is therefore not surprising that, despite their incessant grumbling, Israelis are a very happy and proud people. We should look at Israel today and, without becoming complacent, reminisce about our position of only 10 years ago, and give thanks to our leaders and the Almighty for our achievements. ______________________________ A personal note: I have not written for a while due to health problems. I take this opportunity to thank those who wished me well. At present, I feel I am on the road to recovery. Let me pay special tribute to Shaarei Zedek Medical Center, as well as other Israeli hospitals, especially their doctors and nurses. Despite some major limitations, Israel enjoys one of the best health systems in the world. We are repeatedly accused of being an apartheid state but I challenge anyone to visit one of our hospitals and repeat such a vile lie. The patients include Jews and Arabs and all are treated equally. Even more impressive are the numerous top-rate Arab doctors and nurses who work side-by-side with their Jewish colleagues. If only we could transfer this atmosphere of Jewish-Arab cooperation, equality and absolute absence of prejudice, to a broader national level, we would overcome our principal domestic problem. It could be achieved, but alas, radicalized Palestinian political leaders are determined to intensify the divisions and promote their culture of death because they remain obsessed with the objective of destroying the Jewish state. | ||
Isi Leibler may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)Of China and Oil
By Peter Zeihan
The economic conflict between the United States and China continues to ramp up. Earlier this week the Trump administration announced plans for tariffs on another $200 billion in Chinese exports to the United States. Barring (substantial) Chinese concessions the new tariffs will likely come into effect around the end of August. This is now the third volley in what has become a tit-for-tat trade war. I’m starting to think up snazzy names. “Pacific Pong” doesn’t have quite the right je ne sais quoi, but I’m working on it. Suggestions welcome.
The Americans’ imports from China are triple China's imports from the United States (quadruple if you factor out services). The simple fact is the Chinese are already running out of American imports to penalize. Any effort to shift the dispute to something beyond goods trade will similarly end in colossal failure. The Americans control global trade routes, global energy, global security, and global finance -- everything that makes the Chinese system possible. The Chinese simply can't bring the fight to other fields without suffering immeasurably. (Which isn't the same thing as me saying I'd like to be an American company operating in China right now.) Chinese holdings of American government debt don’t even give Beijing leverage as such "investments" in reality are capital flight from the Chinese system.
While Chinese state media continues to put on a brave face, the days of tone-deaf chest-beating are gone. Government censorship guidelines now regularly bar terms like “Trump tantrum” and “trade war” and in general discourage the discussing of any angle of the issue whatsoever. One of the problems with stoking nationalism is that it can be hard to turn off. With the Politburo realizing they have little ammo for this sort of fight, political consolidation at home is far more important than scoring points in a media firestorm.
But that’s not what I want to talk about today. I want to talk about one of the funniest things I’ve seen in months. On July 11 the Chinese floated the possibility of a 25% tariff on U.S. oil exports. Several media commentators immediately pounced on the trial balloon as evidence of something that would get Trump’s attention because of his stated interest in “achieving American energy dominance.” Maybe it will. The criteria for what attracts or doesn’t attract the American president’s attention continues to elude me.
But that doesn’t mean a tariff on American oil isn’t a fabulously stupid idea. It has to do with the nature of the oil market, and in particular the role of American crude within it.
First, demand for oil is inelastic. What you need, you need. If it takes ten gallons of gasoline to get your delivery truck from A to B and you only have nine gallons, you cannot make the run. You must have ten. So regardless of what the price of the gasoline is, you’re going to buy it. Applied to this situation, were the Chinese to levy the tariff they will simply have to buy oil from somewhere else, and America’s oil will (easily) fill that gap in that third market. Net effect on U.S. energy exporters: zero.
Second, American oil is different from the rest. Conventional crude percolates through rock formations over time, picking up impurities as it goes (sulfur being the most common). A big part of refining crude oil into finished product is removing those impurities. But American oil exports are not conventional. They come from shale formations. Shale isn’t as porous as most rock, so the oil never percolates. It is trapped. Shale technologies are all about cracking out these pure bits of petroleum. Shale oil’s lack of exposure to impurities makes it the lightest, purest oil produced in the world, as well as the most valuable and easiest to refine. China likes shale oil because they can blend it with thicker, dirtier crude to make a cocktail that their refineries can use. American exporters will have zero problems finding alternative buyers, but since the United States produces more of this ultralight/ultrasweet crude than the rest of the world combined. China will find alternate supplies difficult to scrounge up.
So either China isn’t going to put this tariff on, or if it does it won’t have any meaningful impact on the American side of the equation. What the tariff trial balloon might do – what discussion of the topic is probably already doing – is pump up oil prices a touch. Markets – especially oil markets – hate anything that might even momentarily restrict oil’s availability. And this little China discussion is only one of four oil-related bits of news that oil markets are stressing about right now.
The second and third issues involve general civilizational breakdown in two major oil exporters: Libya and Venezuela. Ever since Colonel/President/Wacko Muammar Gaddafi was deposed and killed in 2011, Libya has not existed as a state. It is now a shifting series of warlord-run fiefdoms. Unfortunately for the oil markets, not only is Libya’s crude production not in the same area as the oil export facilities, often times the connecting pipeline infrastructure is under a third party’s control. Libya’s larger oil export ports have switched hands twice already this month, with the expected impact upon export volumes – and global prices.
If anything, Venezuela is even worse. Government ineptitude combined with a slow slide towards one-man dictatorship cum anarchy has transformed what was once South America’s richest state to one of its poorest and condemned much of the population of this once-food exporter to famine. The government’s ability to perform basic maintenance on its oil industry is now collapsing. Venezuela’s oil output is already down to a 30-year low and will likely dip below 1.0 million bpd by year’s end… assuming the country doesn’t completely implode.
Needless to say, such civilizational breakdowns can only exert upward pressure on oil prices.
The fourth hit to the oil markets hasn’t quite landed yet: Iran. The Trump administration is pressuring, well, everyone, to eliminate their imports of Iranian crude by November. The expectation is for a two-thirds reduction in total exports. Countries that resist American pressure will find themselves subject to secondary sanctions that would bar their access to anything that touches the U.S. banking system. Since that is in essence anything that involves nouns it is sort of a big deal. The Indians and Japanese have already signaled they’re going to play ball, and the Europeans are rapidly coming around. That just leaves China.
While the pot-stirrer in me would love to see what would happen to a trade-dependent internationally-wired oil-importing economy like China’s under full financial embargo, I’m fairly sure the Chinese will blink on this one. Financial sanctions of the type the White House is preparing would hit China at least an order of magnitude harder than the tariffs they are staring down, and the Chinese are not suicidal. And while I firmly stand by my claim that no one can really claim to know what Trump is thinking I have to admit things are starting to look more than coincidental: a last-minute cave by the Chinese on Iran just as the third round of tit-for-tat tariffs really start to bite? I see some serious negotiating leverage there, useful in many theaters.
This – all of this – is quite possibly the best-case environment for U.S. shale oil producers. Chronic export outages in multiple countries for multiple reasons, a trade war that is both widening and deepening. All this pushes oil prices up. That helps whichever oil producers can bring new output online fastest. And with today’s shale tech American shale operators can bring on new oil output in half the time the Saudis can bring on their pre-existing spare capacity.
In the first half of 2018, before all this noise erupted, U.S. shale operators were already on course for increasing total U.S. oil output by the largest volume ever – in excess of a fresh 1.5 million bpd. Courtesy of China and Trump and Venezuela and Libya and Iran, that is now the low case estimate.
The concentration of power in the global system continues to gather in the Americans' favor. Trump is demonstrating he doesn’t need to build an alliance to fight and win a trade war with multiple countries simultaneously. Trump is showing he can wield financial tools simultaneously with trade tools to crushing effect. Trump is showing an enthusiasm for standing up to the business community, something that resonates not just with his base, but also Bernie Sanders’. And in case you missed it, last week the United States became the world’s largest oil producer courtesy of shale, granting Trump even more leverage and autonomy in international relations.
As a guy who makes it his business to integrate context and data in to everything, I find Trump’s brash, details-be-damned approach to… everything a bit annoying. But that doesn’t mean he can’t get results.
4a)
An Ally Sizes Up Donald TrumpWhen he says something consistently, it will happen. And his message is that America will remain a reliable partner, but don’t expect too much.
By Tony Abbott
Eighteen months into Donald Trump’s term, the world is having trouble coming to grips with the most unconventional American president ever. Still, he is neither a bad dream from which the U.S. will soon wake up, nor a fool to be ridiculed.
For someone his critics say is a compulsive liar, Mr. Trump has been remarkably true to his word. Especially compared with his predecessor, he doesn’t moralize. It’s classic Trump to be openly exasperated by the Group of 7’s hand-wringing hypocrisy. Unlike almost every other democratic leader, Mr. Trump doesn’t try to placate critics. He knows it’s more important to get things done than to be loved.
The holder of the world’s most significant office should always be taken seriously. Erratic and ill-disciplined though Mr. Trump often seems, there’s little doubt that he is proving a consequential president. On the evidence so far, when he says something, he means it—and when he says something consistently, it will happen.
He said he’d cut taxes and regulation. He did, and the American economy is at its strongest in at least a decade. He said he’d pull out of the Paris climate-change agreement and he did, to the usual obloquy but no discernible environmental damage. He said he’d scrap the Iranian deal, and he did. If Tehran gets nuclear weapons, at least it won’t be with American connivance. He said he’d move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, and he did, without catastrophe. He said he’d boost defense spending. That’s happening too, and adversaries no longer think that they can cross American red lines with impunity.
In Mr. Trump’s first year, he acted on 64% of the policy ideas proposed in the Heritage Foundation’s “Mandate for Leadership” agenda—not bad compared with Ronald Reagan’s 49%.
It’s a pity that he kept his promise to pull out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But his concerns about that deal shouldn’t be dismissed. In the short term, freer trade can be better for rich people in poor countries than for poor people in rich ones.
Mr. Trump thinks that the effect of freer trade has been to make America’s rivals stronger. But as the Harley-Davidson example shows, global supply chains mean that even “all-American products” are made all over the world. The consequence of taxing imports can be losing exports, too, as other countries retaliate. So far, though, Mr. Trump’s strong rhetoric and tough action haven’t triggered a full-scale trade war, but have forced other countries to address America’s concerns about technology theft and predatory pricing.
Then there’s the nuclear diplomacy with North Korea. Maybe a hitherto brutal dictator is looking for the survival strategy that Mr. Trump has offered. On the other hand, it could turn into a latter-day version of the Iran deal, in which pressure is eased on the basis of promises that are never fully kept, while leaving allies unsure of American support. That’s the trouble with one-on-one meetings. They may be good for building trust, but they’re bad for making decisions, because each participant has his own version of what was meant.
Still, whatever your judgment on Mr. Trump’s presidency so far, he has 2½ more years in the world’s biggest job and every chance of being re-elected. He is the reality we have to work with.
For Australia, Mr. Trump has so far been a good president. Despite his testy initial conversation with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, he has honored the “very bad deal” that President Obama made to take boat people from Nauru and Manus Island to settle in the U.S.
Mr. Trump seems to appreciate that Australia is the only ally that has been with America, side by side, in every conflict since World War I. He has exempted our steel and aluminum from the tariffs slapped on many others. As a country that’s paid its dues, so to speak, on the American alliance, we have been treated with courtesy and respect. Still, that’s no grounds for complacency in dealing with a transactional president.
As weightier allies found at the NATO summit this week, Mr. Trump is reluctant to help those who don’t pull their weight, and who can blame him? America has been the world’s policeman, the guarantor of a modicum of restraint from the world’s despots and fanatics. No other country has had both the strength and the goodwill for this essential task.
And America’s thanks for its seven decades of watchfulness and its prodigious expenditure of blood and treasure? Condescension from the intellectuals whose freedom the U.S. has protected, and commercial exploitation by the competitors that the American-led global order has created. It’s little wonder that Mr. Trump wants trade that’s fair as well as free, or that he’s tired of allies who give sermons from the sidelines while America keeps them safe.
The truth is that the rest of the world needs America much more than America needs us. The U.S. has no threatening neighbors. It’s about as remote from the globe’s trouble spots as is possible to be. It’s richly endowed with resources, including energy and an almost boundless agricultural capacity. Its technology is second to none. Its manufacturing base is vast. Its people are entrepreneurial in their bones. From diversity, it has built unity and an enviable pride in country.
In many respects, America is the world in one country, only a better world than the one outside. If it decided to live in splendid isolation from troubles across the sea, it would lose little and perhaps gain much, at least in the beginning. A fortress America would be as impregnable as any country could be.
Mr. Trump is clearly impatient with the liberal internationalism that has shaped American policy for 70 years, which he worries has been better for others than for the U.S. There are two possible versions of the evolving Trump doctrine. One goes something like this: America may help those who help themselves, but it will be likelier to help those who help America. The other, kinder version: They’re your values too, so don’t expect us to be the only ones fighting for them.
President Obama spoke beautifully about American values but was always cautious and sometimes slow to stand up for them. On his watch, the rules-based order was already unraveling. Mr. Trump is much more honest about the limits of American power. For all Mr. Obama’s high-mindedness on fringe issues like climate change, Mr. Trump’s America is more robust. It’s certainly less apologetic and readier to use force. So at least for those allies that don’t shirk their responsibilities, Mr. Trump’s America should remain a reliable partner. Just don’t expect too much.
A new age is coming. The legions are going home. American values can be relied upon but American help less so. This need not presage a darker time, like Rome’s withdrawal from Britain, but more will be required of the world’s other free countries. Will they step up? That’s the test.
I was prime minister when Mr. Obama declared at West Point in 2014 that America could not be the world’s policeman on its own. My response was that America need never be alone, and that while it would have more important and occasionally more useful allies, it would never have a more dependable one than Australia. As prime minister, I wanted to be a welcome contrast to those White House visitors asking America to do things for them—asking instead what we could do for America.
When the WikiLeaks spying scandal broke, there was nothing but strong support from Australia. When Islamic State stormed to the gates of Baghdad, Australian special forces, military training teams and strike fighters were there almost as quickly as American ones, because the U.S. should never have to take on the world’s fight solo.
Being America’s partner, as well as its friend, is even more important now, given Mr. Trump’s obsession with reciprocity. It may be the only hope of keeping America engaged in troubles that aren’t already its own.
In my judgment, Australia should have upgraded its Iraq mission to “advise, assist and accompany” as soon as America did, and extended it into Syria. Australia should have mounted freedom-of-navigation operations in the South China Sea. And Australia should have not only welcomed the move of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem but moved ours, too.
The rise of China means that Australia can no longer take for granted a benign strategic environment. For the first extended period in my country’s settled existence, the strongest power in our part of the world is unlikely to share our values. We can no longer be sure that a friendly nation will be the first to respond to a new challenge to peace, stability and decency in our region.
I fear there will have to be a much greater focus on strategic deterrence, especially if a rogue state like North Korea has long-range nuclear weapons—and especially if the American nuclear shield becomes less reliable.
My government increased Australia’s defense spending from a historical low of 1.6% of gross domestic product to 2%. I made the commitment to continuous construction of major surface ships and began the process of acquiring new submarines.
To its credit, the Turnbull government has continued this work. But I fear that dramatically increased military spending in our region overall—up 60% in the past decade—means that rather more now needs to be done. Can Australia’s ships be expected to operate without the air cover that an overstretched America may no longer provide? Can we afford to wait at least 15 years before the first of the next generation of submarines becomes operational? Does it really make sense for Australia to take a French nuclear submarine and redesign it for conventional power, making it less potent than it currently is?
My instinct is that acquiring a capacity to strike harder and further, while giving our country and our armed forces greater protection, could soon require military spending well beyond 2% of GDP. Our armed forces need to be more capable of operating independently against even a substantial adversary, because that is what a truly sovereign nation must be prepared to do.
America spends more than 3% of the world’s biggest GDP on its armed forces, and the rest of the Western world scarcely breaks 2%. It’s hard to dispute Mr. Trump’s view that most of us have been keeping safe on the cheap. The U.S. can’t be expected to fight harder for Australia than we are prepared to fight for ourselves. What Mr. Trump is making clear—to us and to others—is what should always have been screamingly obvious: that each nation’s safety now rests in its own hands far more than in anyone else’s.
Mr. Abbott served as prime minister of Australia, 2013-15. This is adapted from a speech he delivered Wednesday at the Heritage Foundation in Washington.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
S