|
|
Post by lar on Oct 10, 2019 11:51:00 GMT -5
There's no perfect system in the world. But, if you believe the political uproar from both sides of the aisle about abandoning the Kurds, I'd have to believe that in a Parliamentary system, there'd be a vote of confidence, Trump would be facing. Impeachment is a very difficult process. Has a sitting President ever been removed from office? With Prime Ministers it happens all the time. The solution to the "uproar over the Kurds" would be action from Congress. As I understand it there is a bill in the works that is expected to receive not only bi-partisan support but a veto-proof vote. I'm fairly certain that replacing our current system with something like a Parliamentary system with political coalitions when ours is a two-party system might be difficult (impossible under current conditions). I think it would take an entire restructuring of our electoral process. Yes, impeachment is difficult. It's meant to be that way so presidents can't be dismissed based on someone's whim. Not perfect but I've not heard of system I would prefer. Peter's comment about the administrative state is well-taken. The idea of legislating via executive orders has always bothered me. It's fine for declaring National Mint Julep day and stuff like that. But executive orders appear to have the power of law. I find that confusing based on my understanding of the Constitution. As I understand it, congress has the sole power to create laws. The administrative apparatus that operates under the executive branch is tasked with the job of writing regulations to administer the law. In addition to that, the various agencies are supposed to carry out the policies of the administration. My assumption has always been that carrying out policy decisions is limited to policies that fall within the law. During Obama's term of office he used an executive order to create DACA. I found that troubling as it seemed to contradict existing immigration laws. Some years later Trump came along and issued his own executive order with the intent of nullifying Obama's executive order. The whole thing went to court and a judge decided that Trump didn't have the power to do what he did because he was acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. I'm uncomfortable with that too. Note: I'm way oversimplifying all of this for the sake of making a point; my apologies. Whether one likes or agrees with Trump it is a fact that in his stumbling, bumbling way he has shown a light on immigration like no one else. He's given congress a gift-wrapped opportunity scrap existing immigration law, which in my opinion is what is needed, and replace it with something deals with the issue of illegal aliens that live here currently and that is reasonable, workable, and fair. Congress has done a spectacular job of dropping the ball just as they have done with the War Powers Act and the seemingly unending series of continuing resolutions to keep the government's doors open. Peter is right, congress has all but ceded their authority to the president. They need to take back their arm of the government. |
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Oct 10, 2019 12:41:36 GMT -5
The "dark state" has become a paranoid version/vision of the professional civil service--something without which no modern state can operate. I'm currently reading some Napoleonic Wars military history, which incidentally covers part of the evolution of the bureaucracy responsible for running the civilian side of the British Navy. Its roots go back to the 17th century (diarist Samuel Pepys was a senior bureaucrat), and it gradually replaced the practice of using some aristocrat's nephew who needed a gig. I know that Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister make fun of the hypocrisy and self-serving of the permanent bureaucracy, but it also, sideways, confirms that you can't not have one.
Even in old-fashioned hereditary systems of government, somebody had to advise the monarch and do the work that the monarch couldn't do in person, though the cabinet-equivalent and upper administrative posts tended to go to what we would now call oligarchs--powerful aristocrats and their allies and clients. Nevertheless, they all served at the pleasure (or whim) of the monarch. (Henry VIII might have been the first English king to employ a commoner in high office, based on his competence.) And devising and implementing long-term policies, domestic or foreign, requires structures that outlive individual kings or dynasties.
|
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 10, 2019 12:55:21 GMT -5
Suppose for a moment that your objective is to get the U.S. out of its role as global policeman and avoid getting into local wars in the middle east.
IMHO, step one is to eliminate dependence on the middle east. Method to accomplish that is to open the taps and make the U.S. energy independent, Done.
Then eliminate the need for Europe or anyone else who wants to to have an energy source other than the middle east. Done.
Now, determine which countries are responsible for which wars and whether the U.S. has any vested interest in any of them that overrides the desire to stay out of them. In progress.
Have a viable military such that any action against the U.S. can be defeated. Done.
Start turning over the wars in which we have no vested interests to the countries responsible for them. In progress.
Limit the mid-east countries finances by keeping the price of oil to a minimum. Done.
Sounds like a plan.
|
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 10, 2019 14:01:46 GMT -5
Or, imagine you are an impulsive child who stands to gain from a hotel in say, Istanbul.
You don't give a crap about dead Kurds or escaped prisoners who are probably going to go to Europe, anyway. Why should you?
Sounds consistent with everything we know about Trump, much more than any fantasy "plan" you might concoct.
|
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Oct 10, 2019 14:05:11 GMT -5
Sounds good on paper Bruce but the threat to our well being within the walls of the USA is rapidly evolving towards an organized threat from terrorist organizations equipped with more and more destructive and sophisticated weapons.
These organizations develop in power vacuums that arise in unstable parts of the world with religious ideologies that foster them. They are funded to a large extent by factions in more sophisticated countries with similar religious ideologies.
This is the new and unconventional war our military is becoming more and more involved in containing. To do that requires a presence in the regions where such ideologies live and help ensure that vacuums don’t develop that allow them to flourish. Obama’s poorly thought out troop withdrawal from Iraq and the resulting rise of ISIS is a classic example.
This I fear is going to be a semipermanent state until enough generations and conditions change the medieval thinking that fosters religious based terrorism. The simplistic concept of bringing everyone home and barricading ourselves in our own self sustaining little bubble while appealing is really not feasible (and historically probably never has been)
Defeating ISIS was a epic feat of which the Kurds played a huge role. To abandon them and decrease our presence in that area is a huge mistake and will most likely produce another vacuum in region ripe for a resurgence of their remains.
This is the biggest single mistake of his presidency and his idiotic comments following the decision demonstrate his incompetence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Oct 10, 2019 14:25:02 GMT -5
Having alliances does not equate to being a "global policeman."
Our country has formed alliances ever since the landing of Mayflower, when the Puritans were confronted with a continent that was a patchwork of independent nations in a constant state of warfare. The Puritans were the pipsqueaks. Their leaders quickly picked out a local tribe that appeared agreeable, and offered the superiority of English arms against their enemies in return for help in defending Englishmen when they needed it.
Both sides lived up to their bargain, and the Puritans survived. But then, as now, everything depended on being there when our friends needed us. And they were. The Indians did not run away from our troubles, and neither did we from theirs.
For one account of this, see Nathaniel Philbrick's superb 2006 book, Mayflower: a Story of Courage, Community, and War.
In the meantime, maybe we could start getting away from this shibboleth, "world policeman."
|
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 10, 2019 14:49:48 GMT -5
Having alliances does not equate to being a "global policeman." Our country has formed alliances ever since the landing of Mayflower, when the Puritans were confronted with a continent that was a patchwork of independent nations in a constant state of warfare. The Puritans were the pipsqueaks. Their leaders quickly picked out a local tribe that appeared agreeable, and offered the superiority of English arms against their enemies in return for help in defending Englishmen when they needed it. Both sides lived up to their bargain, and the Puritans survived. But then, as now, everything depended on being there when our friends needed us. And they were. The Indians did not run away from our troubles, and neither did we from theirs. For one account of this, see Nathaniel Philbrick's superb 2006 book, Mayflower: a Story of Courage, Community, and War. In the meantime, maybe we could start getting away from this shibboleth, "world policeman." Word is we still have 20,000 troops in the area in case ISIS rises. The Kurd vs. Turkey war isn't our war and has been going on since way before we got in there. Y'all wanted out and y'all wanted us not to be there for oil. you're getting what you wanted so now you think we should stay there. Yeah, right, you hate Trump that's all. |
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 10, 2019 15:00:09 GMT -5
Having alliances does not equate to being a "global policeman." Our country has formed alliances ever since the landing of Mayflower, when the Puritans were confronted with a continent that was a patchwork of independent nations in a constant state of warfare. The Puritans were the pipsqueaks. Their leaders quickly picked out a local tribe that appeared agreeable, and offered the superiority of English arms against their enemies in return for help in defending Englishmen when they needed it. Both sides lived up to their bargain, and the Puritans survived. But then, as now, everything depended on being there when our friends needed us. And they were. The Indians did not run away from our troubles, and neither did we from theirs. For one account of this, see Nathaniel Philbrick's superb 2006 book, Mayflower: a Story of Courage, Community, and War. In the meantime, maybe we could start getting away from this shibboleth, "world policeman." Word is we still have 20,000 troops in the area in case ISIS rises. The Kurd vs. Turkey war isn't our war and has been going on since way before we got in there. Y'all wanted out and y'all wanted us not to be there for oil. you're getting what you wanted so now you think we should stay there. Yeah, right, you hate Trump that's all.
"Suppose for a moment that your objective is to get the U.S. out of its role as global policeman and avoid getting into local wars in the middle east."So much for that theory. Isis was contained and or eliminated. Now we'll be there in case they rise again? But, anyway, they are probably all going to Europe. Great work, everybody! How could anybody possibly be upset with such genius level strategery? |
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Oct 10, 2019 15:37:33 GMT -5
Bruce, you are wrong. My feelings about Trump (strong though they may be) have nothing to do with my point about alliances.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 10, 2019 15:42:25 GMT -5
As I understand it, congress has the sole power to create laws. The administrative apparatus that operates under the executive branch is tasked with the job of writing regulations to administer the law. In addition to that, the various agencies are supposed to carry out the policies of the administration. My assumption has always been that carrying out policy decisions is limited to policies that fall within the law. You're largely on the right track. Now unlike Russell, I don't have any experience working for Napoleon's government, but I have some working for ours. I'll try to fill in more of the details of what I actually mean (it's "Administrative State", not "Deep State") later when I get some time. |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 10, 2019 15:57:14 GMT -5
(it's "Administrative State", not "Deep State") But it's still paranoia, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Oct 10, 2019 17:03:31 GMT -5
I learned that from millring. It's my great and unmatched wisdom. Don't get a swelled head. It was really probably Omaha. |
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Oct 10, 2019 17:06:53 GMT -5
Whodat?
|
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 10, 2019 17:11:48 GMT -5
Bruce, you are wrong. My feelings about Trump (strong though they may be) have nothing to do with my point about alliances. By NATO treaty, our ally is Turkey. |
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 10, 2019 17:22:10 GMT -5
(it's "Administrative State", not "Deep State") But it's still paranoia, right? Not if they're really watching you. |
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Oct 10, 2019 19:07:30 GMT -5
We are a targeted as enemies by Middle East Extremists/Rebels because we are over there in force supporting those they are rebelling/extreming against. That part is clear and simple fact. We were't an enemy until we were. There. Supporting monarchies and dictatorships. We didn't become the Great Satan by luck of the draw. We became GS because we were over there in their land supporting and arming those they were rebelling against.
That these rebels/extremists would still target us as their enemy if we weren't over there on their land supporting the monarchies and dictatorships they are fighting against is a supposition (as opposed to the previous fact). It is a poorly reasoned supposition in my opinion.
We became an enemy of these rebels/extremists because we were over there supporting and arming their enemies. Simple. True. Obvious. We flatter ourselves with silliness if we think we are their enemy because we are such a wonderful beacon of wonderfulness that they feel this overwhelming need to extinguish our beacon of wonderful shining beaconess. Nope. We are their enemy because we have boots on their soil and put money and weapons in the hands of their foes.
If we have good reason to support the monarchies and dictatorships these extremists/rebels oppose, then fine. We fight on behalf of those monarchies and dictatorships and accept being the enemy of those who oppose them because it is our best interest to do so. If it isn't in our best interest, then get the hell out and those "enemies" we picked up will drop off like fleas. They will have no interest sucking on a dog that isn't farting in their house.
I see no good reason to hang in the Middle East Mad House. There is a collapsing Latin America just a few miles to our south. That is what deserves, immediately, our full attention.
|
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 10, 2019 19:09:25 GMT -5
Bruce, you are wrong. My feelings about Trump (strong though they may be) have nothing to do with my point about alliances. By NATO treaty, our ally is Turkey. Trump gave them the green light to slaughter Kurds. Pretty sure that sort of thing is not in the NATO bylaws. (But at least he did it on Putin's birthday. So that's nice.) |
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Oct 10, 2019 19:36:08 GMT -5
You assume Trump gave Turkey a green light. What if Turkey wasn't waiting for a light. What if Turkey just told Trump, we are going in, don't try stop us.
Who was holding the cards? Who had the upper hand in logistics, troops, weaponry, and allies with teeth?
(hint: Turkey. We had pulled our troops out. Bolton lost the argument. All we had left were threats... we will put a bunch more troops back in and fight your embedded Turkish Troops. We will start an air campaign and start bombing Turkish troops... and the Russian and Syria troops that somehow show up next to them... ok, we will fight the Russian jets that are in the skies overhead supporting the Russian, Syrian, Turkish troops, WE WILL WE WILL NUKE YOU! NUKE YOU!)
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Oct 10, 2019 20:00:27 GMT -5
There is missing information in this discussion. Not that that should hinder the campaign rhetoric.
- How serious is the Kurdish insurrection within Turkey? (I don't know)
- To what degree were the various Kurdish factions within the newly established Kurdish stronghold in Syria encouraging and supporting the Kurdish insurrection within Turkey? (I don't know)
- What did Erdogan say to Trump? Did he ask or did he tell? (I don't know)
- What was the strength and readiness of our ground forces on the Turkish border. Were we vulnerable or were we in fine shape to deter and repel a Turkish move? (I don't know)
- If Turkey did threaten, was it a bluff or were they confident enough in the 'new alignment' of forces in the region that they were serious? (I don't know)
- Did Trump collapse and fold his cards or did he see the hand clearly (I don't know)
- Should Trump have listened to Bolton and not pulled troops out (I don't know.)
- Did the Kurds ever have a chance in hell of holding on to that little chunk of Syria they grabbed during this ongoing Middle East chaos? Or was that little chunk of "New Kurdistan" doomed from the outset to last only as long as there were enough American troops stationed on it to deter its much more powerful neighbors, neighbors who weren't about to ever let it be? (I don't know.)
Bottom line. Missing information.
|
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Oct 10, 2019 20:05:37 GMT -5
|
|
