The preservation of the American Constitution and American freedom is the paramount duty of any American President. American foreign policy is the mechanism through which these goals are prosecuted. American leadership is the means through which American goals are accomplished. The challenge for each president is to take the measure of his times, learn from the mistakes of the past, and foster and apply policies that are most likely to enhance the probability of achieving these objectives.
The Constitution
Too often over the course of American history presidents have misunderstood their times. They have either drawn the wrong lessons from the past or failed to understand the mistakes made by their predecessors. The recent past contains a pair of guiding lessons.
American Leadership: A Lesson from George W. Bush
In the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush determined to illustrate to the world that America would use its strength and power against any foe that it believed was a direct and immediate threat to American freedom and survival. But with this objective, his decision to invade Iraq became a stark example of a failure to apply lessons previously learned. Continue reading “American Leadership in the World – Lessons from Obama, Bush and JFK”
What makes a great leader? There are scores of books and articles on this subject. We could compile a list of most desirable qualities. We could draw references to George Washington, or quotes from Winston Churchill (well, we did borrow from Sir Winston, below). Our focus would start with integrity. But two qualities that don’t go together are these: leadership and hypocrisy. Which draws us to the sad tale of Senator Schumer, the minority leader in the United States Senate.
Integrity, Wherefore Art Thou . . .
What is integrity? At its core lies honesty. Honesty is being consistent in one’s moral and ethical standards. It is truthfulness or accuracy in one’s actions. Internal consistency as a virtue. Where one has conflicting values, it means accounting for the discrepancy.
Socrates, Esteemed for His Integrity
So how to identify integrity? No scientific method is available. We must look subjectively, and utilize this basic test: what could be more deficient in a leader than a failure to follow his own expressed rules and principles? Certainly, leadership and hypocrisy can’t work in tandem. So let’s look toward New York’s Senator Schumer. Continue reading “Leadership and Hypocrisy – The Sad Tale of Senator Schumer”
Thesis: The North Korean threat to the United States and its allies from North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile development is growing rapidly. There are increased risks to the United States. The risks cannot be understated. The direct danger to the U.S. mainland is growing amid increasing concerns to America’s pacific allies. Resolution of the dangers is complex and involves difficult issues with China, North Korea and others.
U.S. policy (sanctions) has failed to stop North Korea’s development efforts, which are accelerating. American must adjust its policy, and soon. If unchecked, North Korea development of nuclearized intercontinental ballistic missiles that can reach the U.S. mainland is inevitable.
The FBI and Department of Homeland Security issued a Joint Analysis Report (JAR) on December 29, 2016. The JAR claims to prove that the Russian government was behind the hacks of the Democratic National Committee and others. This JAR has failed to convince come cyber-security experts of Russian government complicity.
The U.S. China policy may well be affected as the result of revelations made last week by Thae Yong-ho. Thae is the most senior North Korean government official to defect to the west in almost twenty years. In his first interview since his August, 2016 defection, Thae shared insights that will likely have meaningful consequences to the future of the US-China relationship. Thae’s comments may well impact U.S. China policy under President-elect Trump.
North Korean Defector Thae Yong-Ho, Photo: Imgur
Thae indicated that North Korea believes China is fearful of a North Korean collapse. As a result, China’s ability to pressure North Korea over its nuclear program is limited. In the event of a North Korean collapse, Thae maintained, China would fear a unified, pro-Western Korea directly on its eastern border. As Thae put it, “North Korea knows this weakness of China. As long as Kim Jong Un is in power, North Korea will never give up its nuclear weapons, even if it’s offered $1 trillion or $10 trillion in rewards.”
Map of China and Korea, flatworldknowledge.com
Thae also stated that Kim would negotiate with the United States only after achieving his nuclear weapon objective. Kim does not view his nuclear weapon program as a simple bargaining chip with the United States. Of course, the U.S. goal has been to prevent North Korea from achieving its nuclear weapon objective.
Thae is a life-long diplomat and was North Korea’s number two person in London. The North Koreans branded him as “human scum”. Kim stated that “the North sees 2017 as the prime time for nuclear development” given the political changes in South Korea and the United States.
Implications for U.S. China Policy
Thae’s revelations explain the Obama Administration failure to gain China’s full cooperation to reign in North Korea. The Chinese have apparently been playing a duplicitous game. They have taken small steps to imply cooperation with the American policy. At the same time, they have never implemented the steps necessary to compel North Korean to abandon its program. The U.S. China policy thus becomes more nuanced.
Although China backed tough international sanctions against North Korea during 2016, the critical enforcement of penalties against North Korea remains an ongoing issue. The United States has long seen China as the key to force the North Koreans to abandon their nuclear program. Given Thae’s revelations regarding China’s concerns, seen from China’s perspective, a central premise of U.S. policy towards both China and North Korea is subject to full re-examination.
If China’s primary North Korean goal is to ensure the survivability of a North Korean government that remains a friendly ally and an indispensable buffer against the South Koreans, then the United States will face a policy restart in North Korea. The China-North Korea relationship may be more complex than U.S. officials have believed. By necessity, this will impact the U.S. China policy.
The North Korea Policy Dilemma Becomes Even More Difficult
The United States has pursued a variety of approaches to North Korea’s nuclear program over the past 24 years. Under President Obama, the U.S. policy took a definitive turn in 2012 when the North Koreans claimed to be committed to denuclearization and agreed to implement a moratorium on its ballistic missile launches. Two months later, continuing a long-standing approach whereby they say one thing and do another, the North Koreans violated the agreement. As a result, President Obama shifted his strategy and focused more heavily on a sanctions-based approach to North Korea. Obama’s new policy was known as “strategic patience”. The thrust of the policy was an attempt to bring the North Korean regime to its knees through crippling sanctions. The policy failed.
Kim Jong Un’s Nuclear and Missile Policies Are Aggressive and Provocative
As pointed out by Van Jackson, an Associate Professor at the U.S. Defense Department’s Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, Kim Jong Un has implemented a very aggressive policy:
Van Jackson, North Korea Policy Expert
The last four years under Kim Jong Un have already seen 35 missile launches and three nuclear tests. In word and deed, Kim Jong Un has laid bare his intentions to mate nuclear warheads to long-range missiles, pursue a hydrogen-based nuclear bomb, and develop a submarine-launched ballistic missile capability, which has long been considered the gold standard of an assured retaliatory capacity.
In Jackson’s view, North Korea has determined to complete its nuclear weapons program:
Gone are the days in which it is possible to speculate that North Korea’s nuclear weapons were mere symbols or bargaining chips, or that the threat of nuclear attack was deeply hypothetical. . .
North Korea’s nuclear program is now more accelerated, less constrained, and more openly linked to its missile program than at any point in its history. Pyongyang is rushing to deploy a nuclear force that can ensure the regime’s survival . . . But Washington and Seoul are dealing with North Korea is if it were still the 1980s.
U.S. Policy to North Korea Must Adapt to Changed Circumstances
The United States’ goal of a denuclearized North Korea remains perhaps its most difficult foreign policy objective. Negotiations and sanctions have both failed.
Jackson points out that an American approach that involves (1) making nuclear threats, (2) unifying Korea if war occurs, and (3) constant preparations to deploy large-scale forces to win such a war, “removes incentives for North Korean nuclear restraint in the event of conflict. By holding to its old ways, the [U.S.-South Korean] alliance is unintentionally making any conflict more likely to go nuclear.”
The Trump Administration will now have to craft a policy that will both reign in North Korea while insuring that China achieves its apparent objective of maintaining a viable and separate North Korea. With the North Korean nuclear and missile programs proceeding rapidly, developing such a policy will likely be an early and important initiative for Mr. Trump. Threading this needle will be a significant challenge. North Korea continues to show no interest in discussing either its nuclear weapons or missile programs.
What might this new policy look like? Jackson suggests that a new U.S. policy should be based upon two fundamental principles. First, reduce “the role of nukes in alliance military signaling.” Second, “planning and curbing the objectives and scope of conflicts that break out.” Indeed, Jackson believes that American nuclear threats serve no purpose and only incentivizes North Korea to continue its program.
Thomas Jefferson famously wrote in 1787 that “the basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” Yet, twenty years later as President, and on the other side of vituperative journalists, he stated: “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.” Jefferson did not trust the press in 1807. Today, the media is not trusted by the public.
All signs point to President-elect Trump implementing a major shift in the U.S.-China policy that has been in place since 1971. A primary purpose of President Nixon’s rapprochement with China was to leverage China against the former Soviet Union. The economic benefit of the rapprochement, though unforeseen at the time, was the development of a major bilateral trade and economic relationship between China and the U.S. Currently, there is over $700 billion in trade flows between the two countries.
President Nixon and Chairman Mao
However, recent years have witnessed growing cries of Chinese exploitation of this relationship, ranging from widespread intellectual property and industrial theft, to mercantilistic currency manipulation in order to advantage Chinese trade. Military issues exist in the South China Sea. The U.S. position with respect to mainland China’s one-China policy is apparently being reconsidered.
Introduction of Peter Navarro Into the Mix
President-elect Trump’s appointment of Peter Navarro as director of trade and industrial policy and as head of the new White House National Trade Council has amplified the likelihood of a major shift in U.S.-China policy.
Peter Navarro, new head of the White House National Trade Council
Among other things, Mr. Navarro has previously blamed China for the loss of 25 million American jobs. In his writings Navarro portrays China as a menace that cheats on trade in a variety of ways, including through the theft of intellectual property and illegal export subsidies. He has stated that the U.S. is already in a trade war with China and needs to fight back.
The President-elect has suggested that his goal is to level the economic playing field with China. Creating a variety of pressure points to achieve that objective may be wise. However, implementation of those pressure points may be tricky, if not outright dangerous. The risk of a tactical miscalculation is real.
We will explore these issues in more detail in a subsequent Opinion in the coming weeks.
The CIA has supposedly determined that Russian government hacks, as directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, were the source for publication of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails and related emails. Comments from a variety of private security firms buttress these claims. However, in an open letter dated December 12, 2016, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) claimed that the emails were leaked, not hacked.
VIPS is no ordinary group of citizens with an opinion. Rather, it includes a group of highly accomplished retired and senior intelligence personnel. It’s steering committee includes intelligence luminaries including Thomas Drake (former senior executive with the NSA), Mike Gravel (former adjutant, top secret control officer and special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps, as well as a former U.S. Senator), and famed NSA whistle blower William Binney (former technical director, world geopolitical and military analysis in the NSA), among others.
Sports Records: The Unbreakable and the Insurmountable
We start with our bakers dozen of the greatest sports records and sports accomplishments of all time, American version. Here’s a first cut of the records/accomplishments that we believe have, and will, stand the test of time:
Horse Racing
1. No thoroughbred will ever match Secretariat’s accomplishment of holding the fastest time in each of the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness and the Belmont Stakes. Each of these three records still stand today. Secretariat’s combined time for the three races is six seconds faster than any other horse.
Major League Baseball
2. Consecutive Games With a Hit – Of the many sports records to consider, this consecutive games with a hit is held by the incomparable Joe DiMaggio, who hit in 56 consecutive games (need we say more). Willie Keeler, who at 5’4″ and all of 140 pounds was one of the smallest men to ever play in the major leagues (from 1892 until 1910) and who coined one of baseball’s greatest phrases, “hit ’em where they ain’t”, had his 45 consecutive game streak broken by DiMaggio in 1941. The modern-day consecutive games hit leader is Pete Rose with 44.
Hit ‘Em Where They Ain’t!
3. Career Wins – Cy Young won an astounding 512 games. The fabulous Walter “Big Train” Johnson is a distant second with 416 wins. The “modern” era leader is Greg Maddux, who checks in with 355 wins.
4. Consecutive Games Played – Sports record number four is the great accomplishment of Cal Ripken, Jr. who logged 2,632 consecutive games played (more than 16 full major league seasons), a total that will certainly never be overtaken. Hall-of-Famer Lou Gehrig’s prior record of 2,130 consecutive games lasted 59 years, but was then shattered by Ripken. Shortstop Everett Scott is an even more distant third, with 1,307 consecutive games.
Baseball’s “Iron Horse”
NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball
5. Single Season Scoring Average — LSU’s Pete Maravich averaged an incredible 44.5 points per game for the 1969-1970 college basketball season, a sports record that it is difficult to imagine could be overcome, even in the era of the three point shot. Remarkably, Maravich also holds the marks for the second and third highest single season scoring averages, at 44.2 points and 43.8 points, respectively.
6. Career Scoring Average — Pete Maravich holds this record as well, with a 44.2 points per game career average. Notre Dame’s Austin Carr stands second at 34.6 points per game, almost eight points per game less. The advent of the three point shot for the 1986-87 season did not lead to higher career scoring averages, as none of the top ten all-time scoring leaders played during the three-point era. Maravich’s incomparable sports record seems very likely indeed to stand for generations to come.
National Basketball Association
7. Single Game Points Record – Surely no one will ever touch Wilt Chamberlain’s astounding 100 points in a single game. Kobe Bryant stands in second place, but with “only” 81 points.
100 for Wilt!
8. Rebounds Per Game (Career) – Another Wilt Chamberlain mark at 22.9 rebounds per game (Bill Russell is second with 22.5 rebounds). Given today’s “modern” game, where the leader is Dennis Rodman at 13.1 rebounds per game (only 11th all-time), the probability of Chamberlain being surpassed seems infinitesimally small.
9. Assists Per Game (Career) – Magic Johnson’s career record stands at 11.2 assists per game, with John Stockton at 10.5 per game and Chris Paul at 9.9 per game, all significantly behind the Magic Man.
National Football League
9. Most Long Touchdown Passes Thrown (Career) – In the era before the west-coast offense innovation, quarterbacks threw farther down the field. Notwithstanding all of the great passing records achieved in the 2000’s, John Unitas holds these career touchdown records that neither Manning, Elway, nor Favre ever touched, and that Brady, Brees and the like will never break: Most 40+ yard touchdown passes (70), most 50+ yard touchdown passes (51), and most 60+ yard touchdown passes (29) — and all of this among his 290 total touchdown passes thrown. Almost 25% of Unitas’ touchdown passes were over 40 yards! Unitas was the master of the bomb. Unfortunately, the era of the deep ball is now long gone.
10. Most Seasons Leading the League in Rushing – The incomparable Jim Brown led the NFL in rushing in eight different seasons; no one else has led the league more than four times. Brown was a punishing yet explosive runner who retired after only nine years. He averaged 5.22 yards per carry over that entire career, also an NFL record for running backs. Brown later became an accomplished actor and important activist and leader.
11. Most Consecutive Games of 100 or More Yards Rushing – Barry Sanders rushed for more than 100 yards in 14 consecutive games. No other running back since 2000 has more than nine consecutive 100 yard games. In the modern game, Sanders’ record seems very safe indeed.
Barry Sanders on the run
Olympics
12. Most Career Gold Medals – This is another easy choice for our pantheon of all-time sports records that will never be overcome. America’s Michael Phelps won an amazing 23 gold medals over four different Olympiads. No one else has more than nine career gold medals. Phelps also holds the all-time count for total Olympic medals won with 28. Second place finisher Larisa Latylina logged 18 over her gymnastics career.
National Hockey League
13. All-Time Scoring Leader – The last of our sports records is another one that seems obvious to us. Wayne Gretzky amassed 2,857 points scored over his remarkable career. Gretzky stands almost 1,000 points ahead of second place finisher Mark Messier, who accumulated 1,887 points over his illustrious career. Naturally, Gretzky holds the career goals scored record with 894 (Gordie Howe is second at 801), and the career assists record at 1,963 (more than 700 ahead of Ron Francis in second place).
There may be much to be disturbed about regarding Russian hacks (allegedly) of the Democratic National Committee and the emails of persons affiliated with Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign. We presume, for the sake of this Opinion, that the hacks occurred. The theft of information bearing on an American presidential election by a foreign government is no small matter. Yet we realize that espionage is an everyday affair. The U.S. itself, regrettably, has its own sordid history in interfering in foreign elections.
But a singular focus on the thief’s identity amid loud protestations from its victims misses a more important point – truth. To date, there is no hard proof that any of the revealed information was anything other than wholly true. Unless we have missed it, the victims themselves have made no claim of falsity or manipulation of the stolen material.
Evidence that the published emails were changed or falsified would cast the current state of affairs in a different light. It would be a critical slice of information that the American people must see. That information, if it exists, should be made available at the earliest possible moment. It would be proof of an attempt to undermine the Constitution and would significantly elevate the gravity of these events.
Instead, the Russian hacks and the subsequent data publication are no more than the Pentagon Papers redux (or an Eric Snowden encore), but without the substantive impact. Even President Obama observed that the leaked information was “pretty routine stuff.” We differ. Deeds of political impropriety, though perhaps “routine” to some, bear on the virtue and integrity of the actors. Readers are well familiar with the Snowden events. But the 1971 leak of the Pentagon Papers is a relevant analogy to the Russian hacks leading to publication of the emails. Both cases involve important considerations of the Constitutionally protected right of freedom of speech and it’s central place in American democracy.
The Pentagon Papers: A Brief History
In 1967, as the war raged in Vietnam, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara requested the Department of Defense to prepare a comprehensive study dating back to 1945 of the U.S. involvement in, and policy with respect to, Vietnam. In 1968, over 500,000 U.S. troops were in Vietnam. The study was to be top secret. Thirty-six policy experts, historians, and military analysts participated in preparing the report.
Daniel Ellsberg joined the Defense Department in the 1960’s as a Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. Ellsberg was assigned to draft covert plans to escalate the war. He was also one of the 36 selected to work on the secret Defense Department report.
Daniel Ellsberg
By 1971 Ellsberg had become increasingly disillusioned with the war and believed that the U.S. government was misleading the American people regarding the likelihood of victory. With access to the complete study, he covertly photocopied most of the report (now known as the Pentagon Papers), and turned the material over to both the New York Times and the Washington Post. The Times (along with the Post), over threats from the Nixon administration, published the Pentagon Papers. The published documents revealed that the U.S. government, from President Truman through President Johnson, had regularly misled the public regarding both the conduct of the War and the prospects for victory. Publication of the Pentagon Papers further solidified public opposition to the War.
Freedom of the Press Versus National Security
The Nixon administration fought hard to prevent publication of the Pentagon Papers. For the first time in American history the President claimed that the federal government had the right to restrain publication of information on the grounds of national security. The government’s claim thus pitted the First Amendment protected right of freedom of speech against claims of national security interest by the President.
An initial injunction preventing publication was obtained against the Times. However, shortly thereafter the Government failed to get a similar injunction to prevent publication by the Post. An appeal immediately followed and the matter made its way to the Supreme Court within weeks.
In New York Times v. U.S., 403 U.S. 713 (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that prior restraint of publication of the Pentagon Papers was unconstitutional. The Court stated that “only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.” As Justice Hugo Black wrote, “in revealing the workings of government that led to the Vietnam War, the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the founders hoped and trusted they would do.”
The Court concluded that this First Amendment right superseded the President’s claim that publication of the Pentagon Papers would jeopardize national security: “The word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodies in the First Amendment.”
Two groups of Supreme Court justices led the majority opinion. The first group took an absolutist view. They believed that, regardless of the nature of any threat to national security from any published material, the courts simply do not have the power to suppress that publication. The second group believed that a restriction on the press could only be imposed to prevent “direct, immediate and irreparable damage” to the country, a standard that was not met in the case.
Theft and Publication of the Pentagon Papers vs. Russian Hacks and Publication of DNC Emails
Publication of the DNC and related emails (whether the result of Russian hacks or leaks), is indistinguishable in effect from publication of the leaked Pentagon Papers. In both cases, the published information contained evidence of deception – by public officials in the case of the Pentagon Papers, and by leaders of the Democratic Party and members of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign in the current circumstances. Mrs. Clinton sought to be President.
In each instance, the information published posed no threat of direct, immediate and irreparable damage to the United States. By revealing questionable activity by those who were intimately associated with, and involved with, one of the two leading candidates for the Presidency, the publishers of that information “nobly did precisely what the founders hoped and trusted they would do.” As to truth seeing the light of day for the American people to judge, the identity of the revealer, whether it be Daniel Ellsberg or the Russian government, is of no import.
Publication of Hacked Emails Serves the Same Purpose as the Publication of the Pentagon Papers
To those who claim that the hacked (or leaked) emails may have unfairly changed the outcome of the election we ask this. Would it have been better for the war in Vietnam to have longer continued, or for the U.S. government’s clandestine information gathering revealed by Eric Snowden to have remained unknown in the dark recesses of the cyber plans of the United States government? The American people are entitled to make their judgments based on the truth as it may best be known. Whatever consequences may follow from knowledge of the truth, so be it. Things that are made secret have a way of coming to light.
We await the presentation of any hard facts to prove the invalidity of any of the published emails.
