The Sub-government

The Sub-Government
Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 21, 2019, p. A7
We worry where our country and world are headed. We rely on the media’s tweet trackers to tell us what’s next. It’s rumored our president wants to buy Greenland before it melts.

Our presidential campaign is being waged on teens’ screens of social media. Russia is fighting a war without bombs on the world’s democracies, including our own, and winning. Manipulation of emotions of anger, fear and hate can destroy democracies with escalating divisiveness from within, regardless of elections’ outcomes.

Meanwhile, much of the self-inflicted damage from Washington transpires beneath the radar – in good times and bad. Why? Campaign contributions; yes. But there’s more. Not the conspiracy theory of a “dark state” undermining the president. It’s what I call the “subgovernment phenomenon,” out in the open but unreported by the media, whether in Washington, Des Moines or Iowa City. [Photo Credit Common Dreams ("Ahead of a crucial vote . . . defenders of net neutrality . . . projected . . . 'Property of Verizon' on the [FCC's] building to draw attention to the corporate interests at play . . ..")]

On Saturday, August 24, 4:00 p.m., there will be a discussion of these issues at Prairie Lights, 15 S. Dubuque St., in the course of a hopeful and sometimes humorous reading from Catfish Solution: The Power of Positive Poking. Hope to see you there.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson, Iowa City

# # #

Marianne Williamson’s Questions and Answers

Reading from latest book, #CatfishSolution, next Saturday, Aug. 24, #IowaCity's #PrairieLights, 4-5PM. Hope to see you there.
____________
Trump Won't Be Beat With Plans Alone

Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, August 17, 2019, p. A5
Where the column as submitted differs from the column as published the submission is indicated in [brackets] and italics.

Marianne Williamson may not have “the answer.” But she’s the only one who has framed the right questions [– the essential first step to finding answers.] Whether or not that qualifies her to be president, it clearly qualifies her to be a [Democratic Party] campaign strategist. Those who trivialize and mock her do so at their party’s and America's peril.

Here are the questions: "What strategy is President Donald Trump using?" and "What strategy does that require of Democrats?" [One might modify Williamson’s answers, but she's correctly answered the first question and pointed us in the right direction on the second.]

At the June 27 Democratic Debates, she warned the Party that plans are not enough: “Donald Trump … didn’t win by saying he had a plan."

She doesn’t advocate abandoning 20th Century political strategies. Democratic Party candidates still need to meet party members who now stay home or vote Republican – especially the ones living in the 80 percent of American counties that Trump carried in 2016. The candidates must show up, really listen to voters’ challenges and needs, and propose plans that at least outline solutions. [Photo credit: By Supearnesh - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=80914139]

But Williamson closed that Debate by posing and answering the first question: "Donald Trump is not going … to be beaten just by somebody who has plans. He is going to be beaten by somebody who has an idea what this man has done. This man has reached into the psyche of the American people and he has harnessed fear for political purposes."

She’s right about that. Trump won, and may win again, by personally utilizing the same strategy in speech [and tweet] that he and the Russians use in their social media campaigns.

Trump may or may not believe in climate-change science, but he sure believes in the neurological science of the amygdalae, limbic cortex and brain stem, some of the most phylogenetically primitive regions of the brain. He believes in the science of reward and addiction that increase smart phone, videogame and slot machine players’ TOD (time on device); advertisers manipulating consumers into buying things they don't need, with money they don't have, to impress people they don't like; gaslighting, social psychology’s findings regarding groups’ influence on individuals; and the science behind propaganda [and the big lie.] [Photo credit: public domain, http://lbc.nimh.nih.gov/images/brain.jpg (found on page http://lbc.nimh.nih.gov/osites.html).]

In short, he understands the role of fear, anger and hatred of "the other" [in successful campaigns.] He knows the [2020] presidential election will be won more by targeting the most primitive regions of the brains of [140 million or more] voters than by what’s aimed at their cerebral cortices.

So, "What strategy does that require of Democrats?"

Williamson says, "I have had a career harnessing the inspiration and the motivation and the excitement of people." And in her closing statement said that Trump has "harnessed fear for political purposes and only love can cast that out. . . . I’m going to harness love for political purposes."

Her use of the word “love,” with its romantic associations, was neither a precise nor helpful choice in this political context. The Greco-Christian term “agape” would have been only marginally better.

The challenge is much more complex. Trump is strategically increasing the emotions of hate and fear. [In this contest on a playing field in the most primitive regions of Americans’ brains,] what can Democrats do to excite even greater emotional responses involving compassion, empathy, and feelings of community [necessary to our “more perfect union”]?

Marianne Williamson’s questions are a major contribution that deserves understanding and appreciation. Now it’s up to Democrats’ candidates to craft and apply the answers.
__________
Nicholas Johnson is a native Iowan and three-time presidential appointee; his latest book is "Columns of Democracy." [Nicholas Johnson, a native Iowan and former FCC commissioner, will be doing a reading from his latest book, Catfish Solution, at Iowa City’s Prairie Lights, Aug. 24, 4:00-5:00. Contact:: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org]

# # #

Why Trump May Win

Trump Will Lose? Don't Be So Sure
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, May 29, 2019, p. A6
(As submitted; asterisks (*) indicate The Gazette modified the text for space reasons: e.g., the previous clause or sentence was deleted, or paragraph heading was run on into previous paragraph; regular formatting was substituted for bold paragraph headings.)

“It is unthinkable Americans would reelect Trump,” a friend said the other day. I told him to think harder. Here’s why.

Trump is president. Most presidents who want a second term get it; recently Presidents Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barack Obama.*


[Photo credit: Wikimedia.org Commons/White House.]

He has experienced a win. First-timers find Presidential campaigns difficult; they make mistakes. Trump has a tested, winning playbook. [Added May 30: Moreover, he's been continuously campaigning ever since he descended that escalator into a crowd of paid extras June 16, 2015 -- four solid years next month, with 18 months to go.

The economy’s strong. Whatever the full data may show, Trump benefits from the public’s perception of a healthy economy – a major factor in presidential elections.

He’s a media master. He knows how to keep the stories and cameras on himself while diverting attention from his disasters. Worst case, he can start a war; remember “Wag the Dog”?

America’s gone red.* In 2016 Trump won 2,600 counties, 85 percent of our continental land area. Republicans control both houses in 32 states’ legislatures – the most ever.

He’s near the finish line. With his rock-solid 42 percent he only needs nine percent to win. The Democrat must cobble together 51 percent.

He has Russian support. Russia’s role in the 2016 election was no one-off. Their similar techniques throughout Europe and here will only intensify in 2020. Is it serious Russians can hack voting machines? Sure, but the least of our worries. When they can manipulate voters they don’t need to hack machines. Indeed, when they can foment our self-destructive civil war of words they can destroy our democracy from within without firing a shot.

Trump knows social media. He has already spent about as much on it as the top five Democratic candidates combined. (Are you unaware of how Facebook swings elections worldwide by increasing anger, divisiveness and manipulating voters?* We’ll talk about that after you’ve first read Roger McNamee’s book, Zucked (2019) and watched Carole Cadwalladr’s TED Talk, “Facebook’s Role in Brexit – and the Threat to Democracy” (2019), https://tinyurl.com/y4q8mcre.*)

Trump is unrestrained. His willingness to violate our Constitution, laws, social and political norms of behavior gives him a competitive advantage.

He studies and befriends authoritarian leaders. He uses their techniques. Want examples? He turns immigrants, Muslims, asylum-seekers and Democrats into “the enemy.” To expand presidential power he encourages citizens’ distrust in professional journalism, the judiciary and Congress’ constitutional powers. He transforms the Justice Department into his personal defense team.

Trump feeds his base raw meat. Democrats have ignored their base. President Franklin Roosevelt gave Democrats a coalition of the poor, working poor, working class, farmers and trade unionists. Had Democrats served and maintained that base they would win every election from school boards to the White House. Shoe leather and door knocking have given way to some Democrats’ belief that money from the East coast and voters from the West coast are enough to maintain a winning national party.*

He can avoid primaries. The Democratic Party’s primary candidates can’t. They must first raise and spend money on name identification and primary contests. Some will suffer bruises to their reputations. Party activists and voters are splintered. Those supporting unsuccessful candidates may end up with less enthusiasm for the ultimate winner.

Voter suppression benefits Trump. Many Democrats who want to vote won’t be able to.

Is it hopeless for the Democratic Party’s nominee? Of course not. We have an outstanding couple dozen candidates, any one of whom I’d welcome as a next-door neighbor. But to win Democrats must start with a realistic assessment of Trump’s strengths.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson is a native Iowan and three-time presidential appointee; his latest book is Columns of Democracy. Website: NicholasJohnson.org* Contact: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org.*

# # #

Afghanistan: Our Unaffordable War to Nowhere

The Reasons We Should Leave
Contents

History

Absent Prerequisites for War

"War on Terror" is Oxymoron

Cost of Wars

The Powell Doctrine

Conclusion

Nicholas Johnson's Additional Writing on War and Terrorism

Some Recent Afghanistan-Related General Media News and Opinion

The shorthand for President Obama's foreign policy? "Don't do stupid stuff."[Christi Parsons, Kathleen Hennessey and Paul Richter, "Obama Argues Against Use of Force to Solve Global Conflicts," Los Angeles Times, April 28, 2014.]

Our 16-years-long military efforts in Afghanistan qualify as "stupid stuff." The list of reasons is long, and has been discussed in a variety of contexts by me since 2001, illustrated in the 23 examples linked below. So I'll try to keep this short.


-- Sam Cooke, "What a Wonderful World" ("Don't know much about history . . ..")

History. We fail to learn from history. When it comes to war, we go where "no nation has won before."

France had been interested in Vietnam since the 17th and 18th Centuries, ultimately creating a large colony (French Indochina) in 1887 which it ruled until defeated by the Vietnamese in the First Indochina War [1946-1954]. ["France-Vietnam Relations," Wikipedia.] Never mind. We're not French. Those Vietnamese won't be able to defeat our military might. Remember how that worked out for us?

And so it's been in Afghanistan.

"Great Britain and Russia [were] maneuvering for influence in Afghanistan" as early as 1826. The British brought military force to Afghanistan on three occasions: 1839-1842, 1878-1889, and 1919. None ended well for the British.

Following the 1839-1842 conflict, "The Afghans. . . would tolerate neither a foreign occupation nor a king imposed on them by a foreign power, . . . insurrections broke out" and ultimately the British were run out of the country. The outcome of the second Afghan War was a little more complicated, but ended with the murder of the British envoy, and a joint effort of Britain and Russia to draw what are today's Afghanistan boundaries.

After the 1919 war, Britain had to recognize Afghanistan's independence, and Afghanistan was one of the first states to recognize the Soviet Union (with a treaty of friendship). That "special relationship" lasted until the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Editors, "Anglo-Afghan Wars," Encyclopedia Britannica.

Russia (Soviet Union) was involved militarily in Afghanistan from 1955 to 1989. "The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and the U.S. Response, 1978–1980," Department of State, Office of the Historian, Milestones: 1977-1980 ("Since 1955 Moscow had provided military training and materiel to Afghanistan; by 1973, a third of active [Afghan] troops had trained on Soviet soil.")

The results for the Russians were little better than for the British. "The War" lasted from December 1979 to February 1989. "Soviet-Afghan War," Wikipedia.

And with what results?

"In the brutal nine-year conflict, an estimated one million civilians were killed, as well as 90,000 Mujahideen fighters, 18,000 Afghan troops, and 14,500 Soviet soldiers. Civil war raged after the withdrawal, setting the stage for the Taliban's takeover of the country in 1996."

Alan Taylor, "The Soviet War in Afghanistan, 1979-1989," The Atlantic, August 4, 2014 (includes 41 large photos).

Absent Prerequisites for War. Might there be some common themes in why Great Britain, Russia, and the United States have been so unsuccessful over the past 200 years in trying to conduct "wars" in Afghanistan? Let's see.

In addition to our refusal to study history, and our hubris in believing we have a level of smarts and military might denied all other countries, it's as if we don't recognize that war1 is not war2 -- all wars are not the same. You can't expect to win wars you launch willy-nilly, wherever, whenever, with whomever you choose. There are conditions and characteristics that make for wars' successful, and unsuccessful, likely outcomes.

It's best if your military effort is a response to your country being attacked (e.g., Revolutionary War; World War II). Next best is coming to the defense of another country that has been invaded (Kuwait in Gulf War I). Worst are unnecessary, "pre-emptive" attacks on other nations that have not attacked us (e.g., Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan).

Why? Think about it. If Iowa had a 200-year-history of Canadian military invasions from time to time, and Canadian tanks and military were now moving, uninvited, through Minnesota, toward Iowa -- regardless of their pretense for doing so -- even I would be picking up a gun. The Canadians would have a hard time "winning Iowans' hearts and minds." Similarly, when we create a war inside a country with a centuries-old history of foreign invaders, it's not unreasonable for those whose home it is to think of us as just the latest in that history, and respond as Iowans would to Canadians.

Obviously, supporting one side in another country's civil war is even worse. There's no way it can be universally popular ("a British shipyard [built] two warships for the Confederacy . . . over vehement protests from the US." "United Kingdom and the American Civil War" Wikipedia.org.)

Fighting in countries where most Americans know little or nothing about that country's language, culture, economy, history, politics, literature, religion, social structure, and geography -- such as Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan -- is bristling with unintended consequences that make "winning" somewhere between extraordinarily difficult and impossible (as distinguished from the European Theatre of WWII).

"War on Terror" is Oxymoron." Whatever "terror" may be, it is not a country, or even a tightly coordinated group of individuals. Of course, every country seeks to minimize the death and damage to its citizens and property from acts of violence. But were the deliberate human and property damage in Oklahoma City, Boston, and Charlottesville really part of a "war"? The literary license in labeling anti-violence efforts a "war" is questionable at best; but strategies and tactics premised on the assumption that it really is "a war" are self-defeating and dangerous.

Wars are best when fought on behalf of, or against, countries rather than failed states; countries with some semblance of an organized central government -- more like Germany in WWII, rather than 21st Century Afghanistan, which is still largely a collection of tribal war lords' fiefdoms.

Wars are best when both sides wear uniforms that distinguish them from each other -- and the surrounding civilian population. The Taliban and ISIS often don't wear uniforms. Without uniforms it's very difficult to tell your enemy from your allies, and civilian casualties mount and further erode support for U.S. forces -- who are easy to identify.

Wars are best when there is a "front line" (as in Europe in WWII). (1) Fighting individuals without uniforms, (2) who can easily blend in with the population, (3) over constantly shifting parcels of land, (4) individuals who can easily shift from one place to another, (5) resulting in our gaining, losing, and regaining once again the same "battlegrounds," is a recipe for our seemingly endless wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, with their ever-increasing death tolls and financial burdens.

Cost of Wars. A year ago, the combined costs of U.S. military actions in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan (2001-2016) were estimated at $4.207 trillion ($4.792 trillion minus the Department of Homeland Security budgets). Neta C. Crawford [Boston University], "US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting; Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security," Brown University Institute of International & Public Affairs, September 2016.

Because it's hard to imagine that much money, how could we translate $4.2 trillion into its opportunity cost -- the other things we could have bought with it (but weren't able to)? What else could that $4.2 trillion have paid for? Here are some possibilities: a 35-year program of tuition-free college at public universities, or health insurance premiums for every American for 12 years, or wiping out all student loan and credit card debt while leaving an additional $2 trillion for rebuilding infrastructure, or a fund to pay for rebuilding after the damage from the next 41 major tropical storms. Ethan Wolff-Mann, "7 Amazing Things America Could Have Bought Instead of a $1.45 Trillion Jet," Money, May 2, 2016 (if you care, and can't follow my math, email me for an explanation).

While I believe the Brown University and Money magazine numbers do not distort the reality, even with the best of intentions precision in these matters is impossible. For starters, what do you count? The numbers do not seem to include the post-war costs of such things as rebuilding the infrastructure we've destroyed in war (such as the post-WWII Marshall Plan), lifetime healthcare for wounded combat veterans, the consequences from the opportunity costs mentioned above. If you include the costs in the war torn countries (as I think we should), although worse than economic numbers convey, what tort law calls the "pain and suffering" of the population, the survivors who have lost their primary income provider, not to mention their homes, the wounded, dying and dead, the children denied food, shelter, and education -- not to mention parents -- would be enormous. [Photo credit: U.S. Department of Defense.]

Even if we could agree on what costs to include, determining what they were is virtually impossible with a Defense Department that is so sloppy in its accounting that it is impossible to audit. "The Department of Defense . . . once again finds itself under intense scrutiny . . . because it couldn't account for more than a trillion dollars in financial transactions, not to mention dozens of tanks, missiles and planes." Tom Abate, "Military Waste Under Fire / $1 Trillion Missing -- Bush Plan Targets Pentagon Accounting," SFGATE, San Francisco Chronicle, May 18, 2003.

The Powell Doctrine. There are some basic questions to ask about any rational undertaking -- starting a business, choosing a college and major, planning a vacation trip, building a new home or office building.

The consequences of failing to do so can lead to physical injury, financial disaster or bankruptcy, or merely great disappointment.

In the case of war, the consequences can be much more serious, as the discussion above suggests. This is not to say that there are never acceptable reasons for going to war, or maintaining overwhelming military might as a strategy for avoiding the need to go to war. It is only to say that, if you prepare and use a checklist before packing the car and going on a family vacation, you might also want to have and use a checklist before going to war.

Here is a variation of the ways I've summarized that checklist of questions in the past -- sort of my version of the Powell Doctrine:

Is the national security of our homeland seriously threatened?

What, specifically, is the goal you’re trying to accomplish?

What nonviolent means might accomplish the goal, and have they all been tried and failed?

Why do you think a military operation will contribute to (rather than impede) the accomplishment of the goal?

In a benefit-cost analysis, what are the risks, what are the costs (including opportunity costs), what will a military mission require in troops, materiel, lives and treasure to achieve that goal, and what will be the benefits for the United States?

What is a reasonble projection of how long the military mission will take to achieve the goal?

Are the American people, their representatives, and the international community prepared to take those risks, provide those resources and pay those costs for as long as it takes?

What are the probabilities that a military intervention will make matters worse?

What are the metrics or other means to inform us whether we’ve ever been “successful”?

What, then, will be the exit strategy?

What will happen when we leave?

Will that be consistent with our original mission?

See, e.g., "General Semantics, Terrorism and War," Fordham University, New York City, September 8, 2006 (sub-heading "War: Military Control of the Civilians and the Powell Doctrine"); also as Nicholas Johnson, What Do You Mean and How Do You Know, ch. 6 "You As Citizen II: Terrorism and War," p. 61, and see, Stephen M. Walt, "Applying the 8 Questions of the Powell Doctrine to Syria," Foreign Policy, September 3, 2013.

Conclusion. I could go on with this -- indeed the list below suggests I already have. Why? Because President Trump -- after opposing our war in Afghanistan for years -- has recently announced that it will be perpetuated by his Administration. In fact, he wants to send even more troops and taxpayer money into the hopeless pit.

A "war" in Afghanistan was a mistake from the very beginning. If we were trying to punish the state most involved in 9/11 it was Saudi Arabia -- the country that supplied both the financing and the participants. But the U.S. didn't want to declare war on Saudi Arabia after 9/11 any more than it wanted to bomb Idaho after Oklahoma City. So we chose Afghanistan instead.

It was argued that Afghanistan was "harboring terrorists." But any near-failed state can and does do that. To totally eliminate terrorist training in Afghanistan (1) would require more like 200,000 to 300,000 American troops (as I, and others, suggested at the time; clearly President Obama's 100,000 weren't enough) -- if even that would do it. (2) Our efforts to do that turn out to be counterproductive: our mere presence in the Middle East only intensifies anti-American feelings and terrorist recruiting. (3) Terrorists can, and do, easily move from one part of the world to another. If we drove them all out of Afghanistan they would not disappear, they would merely relocate -- as they now have in at least 70 countries. "Michael Evans" "Al-Qaeda finds three safe havens for terror training" The Times (of London), July 2, 2008 ("Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden’s terrorist organisation, driven out of Afghanistan and defeated in Iraq, is re-emerging in strength in three alternative safe havens for training, operational planning and recruiting – Pakistan, Somalia and Algeria – according to Western intelligence and defence sources").

To the best of my recollection, no American official has declared that our real motive for staying in Afghanistan is to plunder it's resources. I raised this possibility in "Why Afghanistan? Think Oil & Gas," September 25, 2009. Rachel Maddow recently suggested it might be our search for a source of the rare earth element Lanthanum (LA); transcript not yet posted. (If we were in Afghanistan for rare earth elements, however, we've been a little late. While we were sending troops the Chinese were sending negotiators, and have by now pretty much cornered all the supplies in Afghanistan's rare earth market.)

In summary, the politicians pursuit of our Afghanistan War has ignored virtually all of the Powell Doctrine checklist. We never should have entered Afghanistan in the first place. As soon as that was obvious we should have left. Having failed to do so for 16 years, it is a very expensive tragedy (in lost lives and opportunities to fund what America really does need) that our current president has gone against his earlier instincts and is sending more troops to keep it going.

# # #
Nicholas Johnson's Additional Writing on War and Terrorism
"Spending on Military Always Comes at al Cost," The Gazette, April 9, 2017, p. D5, embedded in "Of Missiles and Teachers," April 7, 2017

"Focus on Muslims Misplaced After Shooting," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 17, 2016, p. A5

Understanding Terrorist Thugs," The Daily Iowan, December 3, 2015; "What Motivates Terrorist Thugs," The Gazette, December 20, 2015,

Nicholas Johnson, "Sober Risk Assessment Needed to Respond to Terror," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 28, 2015, p. A11; and as "Sober Risk Assessment Needed to Respond to Terror," Standard-Times [San Angelo, Texas], November 28, 2015

Nicholas Johnson, "Syria's Refugees: Job One and Job Two," The Gazette, November 1, 2015

"Why Unwinnable 'Wars' Are 'Stupid Stuff;' Add 'Impossible to Win' to Objections to War With ISIS," September 23, 2014

"Six Step Program for Avoiding War," Iowa City Press-Citizen, November 11, 2014, p. A7

"Is U.S. Response Strengthening ISIS? Playing Into the Terrorists' Hands," September 19, 2014

" Why Iowans Should Care About Iraq War III; Why Do We Accept Words Like 'Islam,' 'State,' and 'Caliphate'?" September 16, 2014

"Is War the Best Answer?" Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 12, 2014, p. A7; embedded in " Whatever the Question, Is War the Best Answer?" September 10, 2014

"Syria: Moral Imperatives and Rational Analyses; Spotting the Issues," September 4, 2013

"Thinking About War -- Before Starting One," March 20, 2013

"Terrorism, War, 9/11 and Looking Within," September 10, 2011

"War in Libya, the Unanswered Questions," March 23, 2011

"General Semantics, Terrorism and War," Fordham University, New York City, September 8, 2006; also as Nicholas Johnson, What Do You Mean and How Do You Know, ch. 6 "You As Citizen II: Terrorism and War," p. 61

"War in Iraq: The Military Objections," International Law Talks: War With Iraq, University of Iowa College of Law, February 27, 2003

"Ten Questions for Bush Before War," The Daily Iowan, February 4, 2003, p. A6

Nicholas Johnson, "Capitalists Can Help U.S. Avert War with Iraq," Iowa City Press-Citizen, Sunday Insight, October 6, 2002, p. A11

Nicholas Johnson, "On Iraq, Tell the Rest of the Story," Iowa City Gazette, October 2, 2002, p. A4

Nicholas Johnson, "Let's not get between Iraq and a hard place," Omaha World-Herald, August 13, 2002 (and as published in the Iowa City Press-Citizen and as submitted to both)

Nicholas Johnson, "Search for Better Response Than War; Don't Reward the Terrorists, but Understand Their Interests," Des Moines Sunday Register Opinion/Iowa View, June 30, 2002, p. OP3

Nicholas Johnson, "Rethinking Terrorism," National Lawyers Guild Conference, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, March 2, 2002

"Teach Our Children Tolerant Ways," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 25, 2001, p. 9A

# # #
Some Recent Afghanistan-Related General Media News and Opinion
Glenn Thrush and Maggie Haberman, "Forceful Chief of Staff Grates on Trump, and the Feeling Is Mutual," New York Times, September 2, 2017, p. A1

Micah Zenko, "Bush and Obama Fought a Failed 'War on Terror.' It's Trump's Turn." New York Times, August 26, 2017, p. A17

Mujib Mashal, "Trump's Afghan Gamble Now Rests on General He Doubted," New York Times, August 25, 2017, p. A1

Mujib Mashal, "U.S. Troop Increase in Afghanistan Is Underway, General Says," New York Times, August 24, 2017

Max Fisher and Amanda Taub, "Why Afghanistan's War Defies Solutions," New York Times, August 24, 2017, p. A4

Bret Stephens, "On Afghanistan, There's No Way Out," New York Times, August 24, 2017

Rod Nordland, "What an Afghanistan Victory Looks Like Under the Trump Plan," New York Times, August 23, 2017, p. A1

# # #

Kushner's Back-Channel Multiple Tragedies

Whether you think President Trump has taken unfair advantage of National Security Adviser, General H.R. McMaster, and Secretary of Homeland Security, John Kelly, or you blame them from going along with his inappropriate demands, either way it's a tragedy.

Much has been written about Jared Kushner's collusion with Russian officials, while a private citizen, to make use of Russian networks to set up a secret back-channel for communication between the Trump Team and the Kremlin that would be unknown to, and incapable of surveillance by, U.S. security agencies. Ellen Nakashima, Adam Entous and Greg Miller, "Russian Ambassador Told Moscow that Kushner Wanted Secret Communications Channel with Kremlin," Washington Post, May 26, 2017; Maggie Haberman, Glenn Thrush and Julie Hirschfeld Davis, "Trump Returns to Crisis over Kushner as White House Tries to Contain It," New Yiork Times, May 28, 2017, p. A1; Abby Phillip and Max Ehrenfreund, "As White House Defends Jared Kushner, Experts Question His Back-Channel Move," Washington Post, May 29, 2017. And see, "Trump's 'Just Politics' Defense," May 28, 2017.

The reaction of former CIA and NSA Director, Michael Hayden, was typical of many experienced with such matters: “What manner of ignorance, chaos, hubris, suspicion, contempt, would you have to have to think that doing this with the Russian ambassador was a good or appropriate idea? . . . This is off the map. I know of no other experience like this in our history, certainly within my life experience.” Adam Kelsey, Riley Beggin and John Santucci, "Kushner Asked Russian Ambassador for Back Channel on Syria and Other Policy Matters," ABC News, May 27, 2017.

What Kushner was proposing was not, after all, what is normally understood by a "back-channel." Back-channels are created by, and certainly known to, U.S. intelligence services. Most often, in my understanding, they would involve the use of individuals' face-to-face communication, not the use of an adversary's secure communications network. They would not be created by private citizens for the purpose of secret communications to and from our nation's adversaries, communications that were being deliberately kept from our own government.

It's understandable that the Trump Team would want to defend itself from this additional blow to the credibility of their insistence that there was no collusion with the Russians. In doing so they could draw upon a number of the Crisis Communications 101 arrows in their quiver. That's the way a White House under siege responds. We're used to that.

What I find tragic about the way they've gone about it is their dragging federal officials with otherwise strong reputations for integrity into the spotlight, and into guest slots on the Sunday TV shows, to be the Trump Team's spokesperson-defenders of the indefensible. These performances have not helped Trump all that much, but have done probably irredeemable harm to the reputations and effectiveness of those officials.

They have used talking points (presumably provided them) that, while not outright lies, are clearly designed to be duplicitous and misleading. When Trump provided code-name intelligence to the Russians, while visiting in the White House Oval Office, there were a number of things wrong with what he did. For one, the intelligence had come from another country with the understanding it would not be shared with others. For another, the nature of the revelation, including where it had been gathered, would make it easy for the Russians to figure out the "sources and methods" that had been used.

Trump's National Security Adviser, General H.R. McMaster, was called upon to handle that one, and said that the stories about what happened were false because Trump had not revealed "sources and methods." But the stories he was saying were false had not said that Trump did reveal sources and methods. The stories had dealt with all the other things wrong with what Trump had done. Nonetheless, McMaster's statements were designed to, and did, leave the impression that Trump did nothing wrong.

The same approach was more recently used with regard to Kushner's back-channel proposal to the Russians. This time both McMaster, and Secretary of Homeland Security, General John Kelly (on ABC's Sunday morning show), were sent out to say not only that what he did was "no big deal," but that back-channel communications are common and actually beneficial when dealing with our adversaries.

Once again, to say that back-channel communications are common and beneficial is true. But that statement is not even relevant, let alone a defense or justification for what Kushner did, and may well have been a violation of the Logan Act among other things.

Trump had earlier asked other officials to give statements to the media defending his actions. Those officials refused. This time they agreed.

There is much wrong with this approach.

For one, it is grossly unfair. It's kind of like asking your best friend to appear in court as a witness on your behalf and commit perjury to save you from prison. It's not a decent way to treat members of your Administration. There is a better alternative when the President has done something wrong or questionable: that's what Press Secretary Sean Spicer is for.

Moreover, it weakens the ability of those officials to help the Administration by doing well the jobs they have been appointed to do. It means the public, legislators and judges, our allies and adversaries, and the media will be less likely to believe anything they say in the future. There's some question as to whether the sitting National Security Adviser should be going public with statements about anything. That is not a position for a "personality." It is a serious, more than full time, largely classified responsibility.

And those are just some of "Kushner's Back-Channel Multiple Tragedies."

Here are some comments of others along similar lines: Anders Corr, "On Russia-Kushner Backchannel, Trump's H.R. McMaster and John Kelly Show Lack of Judgment," Forbes, May 28, 2017; Thomas Ricks, "General McMaster, Step Down -- and Let Trump be Trump; Save Your Reputation While You Still Can, the Country Will be Fine," Politico Magazine, May 28, 2017.

# # #

Trump's 'Just Politics' Defense

And see, "Resources for Trump Watchers"

What's the relationship between the Alt-Right, Russia, and Trump? When historians look back on the Trump Phenomenon decades from now, with its damage to American democracy and government, and democratic movements around the world, the answer to that question may well be seen as far more significant than the answer to "who on the Trump Team talked to whom in the Russian government, when, and about what?".

How could you believe me when I said I love you
When you know I've been a liar all my life
I've had that reputation since I was a youth
You must have been insane to think I'd tell you the truth
How could you believe me when I said we'd marry
When you know I'd rather hang than have a wife
I know I said I'd make you mine
But who would know that you would go for that old line
How could you believe me when I said I love you
When you know I've been a liar
Nothing but a liar, all my doggone cheatin' life

-- Alan Jay Lerner and Burton Lane, "How Could You Believe Me (When I Told You That I Loved You When You Know I've Been a Liar All My Life)" [said to be one of the longest popular song titles ever]

It was put to music and dance by Fred Astaire and Jane Powell in the movie, "Royal Wedding" (1951):


Contents (1) Russian Interference

(2) Collusion

(3) Russian Business

(4) The Alt-Right International

(5) Trump's Defense

It's neither that I feel sorry for Donald Trump, nor that I'm thinking of supporting him for reelection in 2020 -- if he makes it that far. But as the revelations continue to flow it's intriguing to think about what defenses he might have to wherever the evidence finally leads his investigators.

Let's walk through this together.

(1) Russian interference. By now there seems to be general agreement that Russians, probably with Vladimir Putin's personal participation or orders, intended to, and succeeded in, interfering with the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, with the intentiion of preventing the election of Hillary Clinton and aiding the election of Donald Trump. It also seems to be widely believed (though there is no way of proving) that (a) there was no direct interference by Russians with voting machines or vote counting, or that (b) this interference was the factor in swinging enough votes to Trump to produce his Electoral College victory.

However serious these charges may be, however criminal those Russians' actions may have been, however much the U.S. must escalate its anti-cyberwar defenses for future elections, taken alone they do not support charges that Trump, or members of his team, did anything wrong.

(2) Collusion. Certainly, the most serious possible charge is that Trump, or members of his campaign staff, with or without Trump's knowledge and/or participation, "colluded" with the Russians and their efforts.

"Collusion" is variously defined as "a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally," "a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy."

There seems to be an increasing quantity of circumstantial evidence to support an inference of "collusion." There were a disproportionate number of contacts between members of the Trump campaign and Russian officials (compared with their contacts with other nations' officials). So the opportunity would have been there. Even if all those contacts were totally innocent, efforts by those involved, and then the Trump Administration, to deny or otherwise cover up or falsify the full extent of their existence raises additional suspicions. Philip Bump, "The Web of Relatilonships Between Team Trump and Russia," The Washington Post, March 3, 2017 (involving possibly Michael Flynn, Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Jeff Sessions, Roger Stone, and others yet unknown).

And it doesn't help that Trump's son-in-law and all-portfolios presidential adviser, Jared Kushner, offered collusion to Russia's U.S. Ambassador Sergey I. Kislyak. But (a) this was a proposal for a secret, general-purpose communications back-channel between the Trump Team and the Kremlin (using Russian communications channels) that could not be tracked by the U.S. government, not so far as I know, collusion with regard to electing Trump, and (b) it was rejected by the stunned Russian Ambassador. Maggie Haberman, Glenn Thrush and Julie Hirschfeld Davis, "Trump Returns to Crisis Over Kushner as White House Tries to Contain It," New York Times, May 28, 2017, p. A1; and Maggie Haberman, Mark Mazzetti and Matt Apuzzo, "Kushner Is Said to Have Discussed a Secret Channel to Talk to Russia," New York Times, May 27, 2017, p. A1.

The reaction of former CIA and NSA Director, Michael Hayden? “What manner of ignorance, chaos, hubris, suspicion, contempt, would you have to have to think that doing this with the Russian ambassador was a good or appropriate idea? . . . This is off the map. I know of no other experience like this in our history, certainly within my life experience.” Adam Kelsey, Riley Beggin and John Santucci, "Kushner Asked Russian Ambassador for Back Channel on Syria and Other Policy Matters," ABC News, May 27, 2017.

Certainly there is no proof that there was not collusion. But as we all know, proving a negative is difficult, and so the burden of proof (often "proof beyond a reasonable doubt") falls upon those alleging wrongdoing, not those who are charged.

Of course, there was Trump's "suggestion" during the campaign: "'Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,' Mr. Trump said . . . in an apparent reference to Mrs. Clinton's deleted emails. 'I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.'" Ashley Parker and David E. Sanger, "Donald Trump Calls on Russia to Find Hillary Clinton's Missing Emails," New York Times, July 28, 2016, p. A1. But that, alone, doesn't prove an "understanding" or "secret agreement" -- and could be trivialized by Trump as nothing more than an unsuccessful attempt at humor.

Based only on statements by public officials and media revelations (I no longer have top secret clearance or access to more) my guesses at this time, and that's all they can be, are that (a) while there had been what could fairly be called "collusion" in promoting the election of Trump, (b) at the end of the day investigators will not have enough evidence to prove it.

(3) Russian business. There is significant evidence of Trump's numerous efforts, and success, in financial transactions with Russians. Tom Hamburger, Rosalind S. Helderman and Michael Birnbaum, "Inside Trump's Financial Ties to Russia and His Unusual Flattery of Vladimir Putin," The Washington Post, June 17, 2016 ("Since the 1980s, Trump and his family members have made numerous trips to Moscow in search of business opportunities, and they have relied on Russian investors to buy their properties around the world. . . . 'Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,' Trump’s son, Donald Jr., told a real estate conference in 2008, . . .. 'We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.'").

"[Donald Trump purchased the Palm Beach, Florida] house . . . 'Maison de l'Amitie,' or the House of Friendship . . . in 2004 . . . paying $41 million . . .. He intended to flip it for a quick -- and huge -- profit. . . . The property sat on the market for about two years . . . . It wasn’t at all clear who might pay Trump three times his buying price . . . amid a looming recession. In the summer of 2008, Trump found a solution . . . one of the world’s hundred richest men . . . Russian billionaire named Dmitry Rybolovlev. . . . Rybolovlev had made his fortune in the wild west of 1990s post-Soviet Russia. . . . He would pay Trump $95 million for Maison L’Amitie . . . the most expensive U.S. residential property sale ever." Michael Crowley, "Trump and the Oligarch," Politico, July 28, 2016.

4.The Alt-Right International. Any label we put on an individual (e.g., "athlete," "Catholic," "Republican"), including ourselves, is a futile effort. We are each a complex array of characteristics -- and those characteristics are always changing. To categorize people with a single label communicates both too much, and far too little, about the person labeled. And if you can't do it for a single individual, you certainly can't do it for a group.

So it is with Trump voters -- or Trump himself -- indeed, "members" of almost any social-political movement.

Nonetheless, the role of the Alt-Right in the 2016 presidential election, and Trump's identification with many of its goals, has been a proportionately under-reported part of Trump's Russian connections.

Trump is a hero to the Alt-Right. Through a series of semi-organized campaigns, Alt-Right activists applied [a] slur to every major Republican primary candidate except Trump, who regularly rails against “political correctness,” Muslims, immigrants, Mexicans, Chinese and others. They have also worked hard to affix the Alt Right brand to Trump through the use of hashtags and memes.

"Alternative Right," Southern Poverty Law Center

Few of us know much about the Alt-Right: 54% know nothing at all, and 28% know only "a little." John Gramlich, "Most Americans Haven't Heard of the 'Alt-Right,'" FacTank, Pew Research Center, December 12, 2016. Here's some more description from the Southern Poverty Law Center:

"[The Alt-Right] is a set of far-right ideologies, groups and individuals whose core belief is that 'white identity' is under attack by multicultural forces [trying] to undermine white people and 'their' civilization . . . that favors experimentation with the ideas of the French New Right; libertarian thought . . . [and] anarcho-capitalism, which advocates individual sovereignty and open markets in place of an organized state . . .. [T]he movement in 2015 and 2016 concentrated on opposing immigration and the resettlement of Syrian refugees in America. . . . [It] is . . . a version of an ideology popular in Europe that emphasizes cultural and racial homogeneity within different countries. . . . [T]he movements on both continents are similar in accusing older conservatives for selling out their countries to foreigners. . . . While some Alt-Right leaders are unquestionably anti-Semitic, others [see] Jews simply as white people. . . . Social media have been instrumental to the growth of the Alt-Right['s] legions of anonymous Twitter users . . .."

So, what's the relationship between the Alt-Right, Russia, and Trump? When historians look back on the Trump Phenomenon decades from now, with its damage to American democracy and government, and democratic movements around the world, the answer to that question may well be seen as far more significant than the answer to "who on the Trump Team talked to whom in the Russian government, when, and about what?".

A major factor in Trump's connection to the Alt-Right is the fact that his former Campaign CEO, and then White Houise Chief Strategist, Steve Bannon, was a prominent promoter of the Alt-Right and Chair of Breitbart News. "Bannon once described Breitbart News in an interview with the Investigative Fund as the 'platform for the alt-right' . . .. It's a brand of far-right conservatism that generally embraces and promotes white nationalism, racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, transphobia and misogyny." Jessica Roy, "What is the Alt-Right? A Refresher Course on Steve Bannon's Fringe Brand of Conservatism," Los Angeles Times, November 14, 2016.

Here more excerpts from just a couple of the relevant articles.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has emerged as a hero of several prominent alt-right figures, raising new questions about the Kremlin's influence on the far-right, white nationalist movement that has asserted itself as a new force in American politics.

[T]he extent to which the alt-right has found a natural ally in Russia's current zeitgeist — which perceives the US as a globalist, imperialist power working on behalf of liberal elites — is hard to overstate.

Self-described white nationalist Matthew Heimbach, . . . a member of the alt-right, has praised Putin's Russia as "the axis for nationalists."

“I really believe that Russia is the leader of the free world right now. . . . Putin is supporting nationalists around the world and building an anti-globalist alliance, while promoting traditional values and self-determination. . . . This isn’t just a European or a right-wing movement," he said. "We're trying to position ourselves to be a part of this worldwide movement of globalism versus nationalism. It's a new age." . . .

[A]lt-right leader Richard Spencer . . . has argued that the US should dispense with its globalist policies by pulling out of NATO, resetting its relationship with Russia, and courting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad . . .. [H]e has called [Russia] the “sole white power in the world," . . ..

Natasha Bertrand, "'A Model for Civilization': Putin's Russia Has Emerged as 'a Beacon for Nationalists' and the American Alt-Right," Business Insider, December 10, 2016

"In boosting Trump and funding fringe parties in Europe, Russia has helped construct a new kind of 'comintern' —and it's even more effective than the Cold War version." Mike Lofgren, "Trump, Putin, and the Alt-Right International," The Atlantic, October 31, 2016. (If you are unfamiliar with "comintern," it is short for the Communist International (or "Third International"), an international communist organization that advocated world communism (1919-1943).)

The Atlantic article also comments:

We are now witnessing a curious phenomenon: The resurgent far-right parties in numerous Western countries, which harp incessantly on the sovereignty, independence, and world-historical uniqueness of whichever country they happen to live in, have self-organized into a transnational alt-right “comintern” that appears to be more effective than the leftist comintern of the Soviet era. No doubt this development was inevitable in the age of digital communication, but it has undeniably received a boost from the Kremlin. It also bears emphasis not only that Russia is attempting to influence politics in Western nations, but that this influence comes prepackaged with a specific ideological content.

5. Trump's Defense. This is probably one of those "not all Trump supporters are affiliated with the Alt-Right, but all (or nearly all) voters who lean Alt-Right were probably Trump voters."

Just a guess, but there were probably large percentages of both Clinton and Trump voters who had never heard of the Alt-Right, or were at least unaware of its orientation and significance -- including Trump's ties to the movement.

If The Alt-Right International is, in fact, as pro-Russian, pro-authoritarian, anti-government, anti-democracy a threat to nations' democratic and human rights movements as I believe it to be, what could possibly be Trump's defense to his complicity in its rise?

Ironically, his best defense could be his well-documented propensity to lie.

"Donald Trump is in a different category. The sheer frequency, spontaneity and seeming irrelevance of his lies have no precedent. . . . Trump seems to lie for the pure joy of it. A whopping 70 percent of Trump’s statements that PolitiFact checked during the campaign were false, . . . 4 percent were completely true, and 11 percent mostly true. . . . 26 percent of [Hillary Clinton's] statements were deemed false." Maria Konnikova, "Trump's Lies vs. Your Brain," Politico Magazine, January/February 2017.

And for a catalog of examples see, Alan Yuhas, "How Does Donald Trump Lie? A Fact Checker's Final Guide," The Guardian, November 07, 2016 (a catalog of examples)

As this blog post begins, "How could you believe me . . . when you know I've been a liar all my life?" Having shown a gymnast's ability to leap from one side of an argument to the other, he may be able to pull it off with this "just politics" defense.

"Hey, folks, I was only kidding. You know how it is about politics," he might say. "I don't believe in that Alt-Right stuff. Steve Bannon told me it could help us rack up more votes, bring some folks to the polls who would not otherwise have voted. Turned out he was right."

# # #

Collusion, Treason, Trump and Putin

Collusion 1. a secret agreement, especially for . . . treacherous purposes; conspiracy

2. Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally . . . or to appear as adversaries though in agreement

-- Dictionary.com

Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, . . . adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason . . . and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

-- 18 U.S. Code §2381 (1994)

Impeachment The President . . . shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

-- U.S. Constitution, Article II, §4 (The 25th Amendment to the Constitution provides alternative procedures following a finding that the president is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.")

_______________
What can we pluck from the speculation and wild accusations, alternative facts and devious denials, regarding Russia's involvement in our last presidential election? Here's a quick, three-part summary:

Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin was not fond of Hillary Clinton and preferred Donald Trump as the next U.S. president. Individuals in Russia were involved in hacking into computers of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton Campaign, and facilitating release of some of their content. They, or others in Russia, prepared propaganda and false damaging information about Clinton and distributed it throughout the U.S. through social media. However probable it may be that some voters were, to some extent, influenced in their opinions of the candidates, and even ultimate choices at the ballot box, there is no procedure for collecting the data necessary to prove or disprove such suspicions. It is unlikely that, but for these Russian efforts, Clinton would have won the electoral vote (although there's no way that can be proved or disproved). There have been assertions that Russians wanted to manipulate voting machines, but no evidence that, if so, they were successful in doing so.

Trump. A second, related, line of inquiry has involved the past and present ties that Trump, his family, campaign and other associates, may have with Russian oligarchs, banks, politicians and government officials. This includes Americans' interests in investments there (or payments from there) and Russians' investments or payments here. A significant number of individuals in both countries, meetings, and transactions have been identified and reported. Of course, a substantial impediment to a thorough understanding is Trump's refusal to comply with the norm that presidents reveal their past tax returns. And the Trump Team's case has not been strengthened by the number of instances in which their contacts with Russians (or payments from Russians) have been denied, only to have been unequivocally confirmed later.

Collusion. A third, and seemingly final inquiry addresses the possibility that there was "collusion," a "conspiracy," among the joint forces of Putin and Trump, working together in their efforts to defeat Clinton and elect Trump. Such a finding ("beyond a reasonable doubt") is somewhere between extremely difficult and impossible to prove without documents (e.g., electronic messages, meeting notes, transcripts of conference calls) or the testimony of those present at such meetings. If a "secret agreement" or "conspiracy" (as "collusion" is defined at the top of this post) can be shown, fine. But an inability to do so should not be the end of the matter. Indeed, it should not have been the beginning, either.

Here is an effort at an explanatory analogy for where the Putin-Trump inquiry should have begun.

Consider the terrorist attack on 9/11. That involved collusion, or a conspiracy -- an organization, communication and control, financing, training, a plan, and the execution of that plan. That was the case with some of the terrorist attacks in Europe and elsewhere. But as our government, intelligence community, and international cooperation became more sophisticated, loose affiliations such as Al Qaeda and ISIS found it increasingly difficult to carry out such organized attacks. Did they give up? No. What did they do? They changed strategy and procedures.

They began sending out to everyone in the world with an Internet connection the equivalent of the computer-generated emails we all get from time to time notifying us that we can't "reply" to the email. They said, in effect, "Don't leave your country; don't try to contact us or come to the Middle East for training; don't try to organize massive destruction like 9/11. Do what you can do where you are: shoot somebody or throw them off a rooftop, make a car bomb or drive your car into a crowd." Many to most of those who were persuaded by these Web pages and social media messages, persuaded to engage in some terrorist act, were not a part of a conspiracy, or collusion with a terrorist organization's leadership. They had attended no meetings, had no conversations, received no electronic communications personal to them. What they do is "consistent" with the organization's goals and strategies, but it does not constitute "collusion."

This is something we experience in our daily lives. Local street demonstrations -- whether the global "Women's March" demonstrations on January 21, or those throughout Russia on March 26; whether those of the Tea Party or Occupy -- often emerge and grow without any need for a conspiracy, collusion, or communication. Nor need it always be as dramatic as terrorist acts or demonstrations. The same is true of fads in food, dress, sports, or smartphones.

And that, I believe, is how we should approach the actions of Putin and Trump before, during, and after the November 8, 2016, presidential election. It is not necessary that they and their teams talked strategy with each other, or enabled each other's actions, or coordinated their campaign strategies and tactics. [Photo credit: Reuters/Alexander Zemlianichenko, AP Photo/Evan Vucci, Business Insider/Skye Gould]

"Treason," defined at the top of this post, only speaks of "giving [enemies] aid and comfort." Clearly, Putin derived "aid and comfort" from the outcome of the election, and the attitudes and actions of Trump's Team that have paralleled Putin's own.

So where's the evidence? Here are some excerpts from Newsweek's take last August:

Not since the beginning of the Cold War has a U.S. politician been as fervently pro-Russian as Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. . . . Trump has praised President Vladimir Putin as a real leader, “unlike what we have in this country.” Trump has also dismissed reports that Putin has murdered political enemies (“Our country does plenty of killing also,” he told MSNBC) . . .. When Russian hackers stole a cache of emails [from the DNC] . . . Trump called on “Russia, if you’re listening,” to hack some more. . . .

“Trump advocates isolationist policies and an abdication of U.S. leadership in the world. He cares little about promoting democracy and human rights,” [says U.S. ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014] Michael McFaul. “A U.S. retreat from global affairs fits precisely with Putin’s international interests.” . . . Kremlin-sponsored propaganda outlets like Sputnik and RT . . . have lavishly praised Trump, . . . supported Trump’s assertion that Barack Obama “founded ISIS,” and Russia’s world-class army of state-sponsored hackers has targeted Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. . . .

[T]he Kremlin’s support for Trump is part of a longstanding strategy to sow disruption and discord in the West. Whether it’s by backing French ultra-nationalists . . . or boosting Donald Trump’s chances by blackening the Democrats, the Kremlin believes Russia benefits every time the Western establishment is embarrassed. . . .

Former CIA Director Mike Morell wrote . . . that Putin “recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation” with flattery. But the truth is more nuanced. Trump’s pro-Putinism goes back to at least 2007, when he told CNN that [Putin] was doing “a great job” rebuilding Russia. Trump was pushing real estate deals in Moscow at the time and, according to one Moscow-based American businessman . . . Trump’s admiration for Putin was rooted in “pure self-interest. . . . He was looking to make friends and business partners” among Russia’s politically connected elite. . . .

Trump’s . . . political career has made him an important part of Putin’s wider strategy to weaken the West and court conservatives around the world . . .. into a grand anti-liberal alliance headed by Russia. In August, Moscow hosted a gathering of nationalist and separatist activists from all over Europe and the U.S. . . ..

“The target of the hacks wasn’t just Clinton,” [former head, Estonian intelligence] Eerik-Niiles Kross, wrote . . .. "What the Russians have in their sights is nothing less than the democratic fabric of American society and the integrity of the system of Western liberal values. . . . The political warfare of the Cold War is back -- in updated form, with meaner, more modern tools, including a vast state media empire in Western languages, hackers, spies, agents, useful idiots, compatriot groups, and hordes of internet trolls.” In other words, Trump is merely a useful stooge in the Kremlin’s grand design to encourage NATO disunity, U.S. isolationism and the breakup of Europe.

Owen Matthews, "How Vladimir Putin is Using Donald Trump to Advance Russia's Goals," Newsweek, August 29, 2016.

OK; keep the search for "collusion" or a "conspiracy" on the back burner. But what the media's investigative reporters, House, Senate, and any other investigative committees ought to be focusing on is making the case for what Putin and Trump are doing in parallel that results in weakening the world's great democracies -- whether or not it is the result of joint planning.

_______________
Comparable analyses and conclusions are found in many other sources, including "The view from the Kremlin: Putin's War on the West," The Economist," Feb. 12, 2015; and Mark Galeotti, "Putin’s Chaos Strategy Is Coming Back to Bite Him in the Ass," Foreign Policy, October 26, 2016 ("The Russian president has sown confusion and conflict around the world the past two years. But his short-sighted meddling isn’t the work of a mastermind.")

And compare what Putin and Trump are seemingly trying to accomplish with this 2004 UN General Assembly list of the necessary elements of a successful democracy:

• Separation and balance of power
• Independence of the judiciary
• A pluralistic system of political parties and organisations
• Respect for the rule of law
• Accountability and transparency
• Free, independent and pluralistic media
• Respect for human and political rights; e.g., freedoms of association and expression; the right to vote and to stand in elections

Michael Meyer-Resende, "International Consensus: Essential Elements of Democracy," Democracy Reporting International (October 2011).

And see also, "Tracking Trump," November 9, 2016-January 19, 2017; "Resources for Trump Watchers," February 11, 2017.

# # #

The Doping Dilemma

[See below, at bottom of this blog entry, for comment exchange.]

Should Sports Allow Drugs that Enhance Performance?

Nicholas Johnson

The Gazette, August 17, 2016, p. 5A
I'm not proud to say it.

It was the 1960s. Illegal drugs were everywhere. I was a young lawyer, living as a hippie-public official. That’s what kept me from drugs – not health concerns, personal discipline, or common sense. Illegal drugs simply couldn’t be part of my life.

That doesn't mean I'm a fan of our "War on Drugs."

Illegalization has promoted more crime, not less, probably contributing even more deaths from the use of guns than from drugs. Because there's no quality control of illegal drugs they’re even more deadly. It's occasionally involved our government in the cocaine trade.

Not only has it cost taxpayers billions of dollars, it has simultaneously kept the government from collecting taxes on sales (as it does with alcohol and tobacco).

When it rarely produces a dip in supply, that simply drives up street prices and profits for dealers. It’s made us the number one nation for percentage of incarcerated citizens -- including more blacks working as prison laborers today than once worked as slaves.

So what’s the alternative?

In 2001, Portugal repealed criminal penalties for possession of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. Fears of increased costs and consumption proved unwarranted. Health services for addicts were cheaper than incarceration. Teens' drug use and HIV from dirty needles declined. Addicts seeking treatment more than doubled.

The elephant in the Rio Olympics’ venues – performance enhancing drugs (PED) – brought Portugal’s experience to mind.

Athletes’ PED use began with the first Olympics 2000 years ago, 776-393 BC. Today it’s present in most sports, and from high school, to college, to the Olympics, to professional athletes. Efforts to stop it have proven as futile as our 1920s prohibition of alcohol, and more recent War on Drugs.

If only ineffective it would just be a waste of money. As it is, it also infuses otherwise honorable, sportsmanlike contests with subterfuge, lying, and deceit – to the harm of sports’ fans, athletes, and our children. It risks athletes' health from the lack of physician monitoring and the use of unsafe, untested substances and dosages. It encourages a contest of escalating sophistication in the design and detection of ever more difficult-to-detect substances.

Need athletes be protected from themselves? Injuries and death occur in many sports; athletes "assume the risk," legally and morally – think brain injuries from football. Shouldn't adults be as free to do their own benefit-cost risk assessments of doping as of any athletic or other risk?

Want a level playing field? It doesn’t exist.

Many things can enhance performance. Athletic parents who start training their three-year-olds. Poor students who run five or ten miles each way to school. Wealthy parents who provide private coaching and clubs, and free their college athletes from the need to work. Coaches with the equipment and knowledge of sports science (including diets) to maximize training efficiency. Working out at higher altitudes to gain an oxygen boost upon return.

Doping also can and does affect performance. But because it is also illegal, surreptitious, and widespread, it creates a terrible conflict for coaches and athletes – dope and risk getting caught, or comply with the rules and risk adding the hundredths of a second that can separate winners from losers.

Perhaps organized athletics, including the Olympics, should consider abandoning their ineffective anti-doping efforts. Perhaps they should consider the sports equivalent of the Portugal approach. Let doping join the long list of other things by which athletes and coaches can enhance performance – with approved drugs, dosages, and supervision by medical doctors and pharmacists.

A perfect solution? Of course not. But with a 2000-year history of failed bans, it may be a least-worst option worth trying.

Given today’s widespread doping in all sports, the competitive results would be little different. But it would be safer, less deceitful, and create a more honorable and level playing field for athletes, coaches, and fans alike.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson, a former sports law professor, lives in Iowa City. Contact: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org.

Comments
Gary Ellis provided the following response by email to this column:

Saw your piece in the Gazette. Got to ask, aren't you just saying that if it feels good do it? Is there any morality of what is right and wrong?

Perhaps we should just stop spending any public money on sports and let it survive on its own? Maybe we should do away with some of the celebrity status of activities like sports. Society would be better off if we focused on science and economics where our goals would be to improve the human existence.

To which I replied by email:

I can see how what you say in your first sentence could be a reader's take-away from the column.

There's law, morality, and there're also public health issues. But there's always that balance between personal freedom and self-imposed harms of such severity as to warrant what the opponents of regulation call "the nanny state."

For example, tobacco use is the single greatest cause of Americans' deaths. Alcohol is the nation's number one hard drug by every conceivable measure. We have anti-tobacco and alcohol encouragement, education, treatment centers and so forth -- but we do not ban the sale of either. That also could be said to be a form of "if it feels good do it."

Your second sentence is something I've advocated over the years (splitting the money collegiate sports off from universities) and that has some support from at least some athletes and agents.

# # #

An Answer To Athletes' Doping?

Lessons From the 'War on Drugs'
Update, August 6, 2016: I have a confession. Some of the blog posts at FromDC2Iowa are triggered by a news item, some follow a considerable amount of research, others are simply the sharing of an idea floating through my brain -- the motivation for this one on July 23. To the best of my memory I had never before read of a proposal to deal with athletes' doping by simply eliminating the prohibition. It was just a brief idea that I thought worth sharing.

This morning [August 6], while making coffee, I caught a bit of the discussion on Bill Littlefield's "Only a Game," on NPR. A guest was expressing some of the same ideas regarding doping that I'd written about here a couple weeks ago. With a little research I tracked down an article that guest had written. I'm always pleased, rather than disappointed, to find that an "original" idea of mine has occurred to professionals who really know what they're talking about.

Here are some excerpts from Patrick Hruby's article:

Doug Logan had seen enough. For years, he had served on the front line of the sports war on performance-enhancing drugs, first as the commissioner of Major League Soccer, and later as the chief executive officer of USA Track and Field. For years, he believed in the fight. . . .

This was a war, Logan began to realize, with few victories. . . . In an online [2013] column titled "May the Best Meds Win," he called the sports war on drugs hypocritical and unwinnable. A quagmire. . . . If athletes break criminal laws, then let them face the consequences; otherwise, let them decide what's best for their bodies.

For decades, the sports world's response to PED use has been . . . : zero tolerance. Police and punish. No retreat, and certainly no surrender. . . .

However, a small group [has] started to challenge that view. The war on doping, they contend, has done far more harm than good: wasting money, retarding medicine, fostering corruption, and trampling on athletes' rights and dignity while failing to protect their health. The ongoing Russian scandal . . . resulting in at least 111 Russian athletes being banned from Rio -- is not, to them, a meaningful victory. Rather, it's a sign of ongoing defeat. Sports keep fighting. Drugs keep winning. Wouldn't it be safer, rational, and arguably more honest to end PED prohibition? To permit, study, and regulate the drug use that already happens regardless of the rules?

-- Patrick Hruby, "The Drugs Won: The Case for Ending the Sports War on Drugs," Vice Sports, August 1, 2016

_______________
I'm not proud to say it. It wasn't a matter of health concerns or rigid discipline. As a licensed lawyer and public official at the time there was no alternative -- even while living as a hippie-public official. Illegal drugs could not be a part of my life. And so it has been to the present day.

That doesn't mean I'm a fan of our "War on Drugs." It seems to me that it has just promoted more crime, not less. It has, thereby, probably contributed to more deaths from the use of guns than from the use of drugs. Moreover, because there's no quality control of illegal drugs they cause even more deaths. It's occasionally involved our government in the cocaine trade. Not only has it cost taxpayers billions of dollars, it has kept the government from collecting taxes on drug sales, like it does with alcohol and tobacco. On occasions when it produced a dip in supply, it's simply driven up street prices and financial reward for drug traffickers. It has made America number one among nations in percentage of incarcerated citizens -- including more blacks working as prison laborers today than once worked as slaves.

In 2001, Portugal repealed all criminal penalties for possession of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine. Fears of increased consumption proved unwarranted. Health services for addicts were cheaper than incarceration. There was a drop in teens' drug use, and HIV infections from dirty needles. The number of addicts seeking treatment more than doubled. See, e.g., Maia Szalavitz, "Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?" TIME, April 26, 2009.

This all came back to mind while reading the latest episode in sports' longest-running drama: the unsuccessful efforts to prevent athletes doping to improve performance. This time the accusation is that Russia has a state-supported doping operation that threatens to ban all of its athletes from performing in the forthcoming Olympic games. There has been so much written about what The Guardian calls "The Russian Doping Scandal" that it has devoted an entire section of its Web site to links to the stories.

Doping has been going on for at least 2000 years. ("The use of drugs to enhance performance in sports has certainly occurred since the time of the original Olympic Games [from 776 to 393 BC]. . . . [A] viscous opium juice [was] the drug of choice of the ancient Greeks." Larry D. Bowers, PhD, "Athletic Drug Testing," Clinics in Sports Medicine, April 1, 1998.) No wonder stopping it has proven to be an unwinnable challenge in virtually all sports, and from high school, to college, to the Olympics, to professional athletes.

As for the Olympics, The New York Times reports, "Results from the second wave of retesting [brought] the total number of implicated athletes to 98. The new results affected 30 athletes from eight countries who competed in four sports in Beijing, and 15 athletes from nine countries who competed in two sports in London, according to the I.O.C. . . . Revelations of a government-run doping program in Russia have called into question global sports’ antidoping system, as well as sports officials’ willingness to expose drug offenses. . . . [I]n a cat-and-mouse dynamic, both testing methods and doping methods have gotten more sophisticated, with those seeking to beat the system devising new ways to skirt detection." Rebecca R. Ruiz, "Russia’s Paralympic Team Is Facing a Ban of Its Own," The New York Times (online), July 23, 2016, p. A1.

The UCLA Bruins Coach Red Sanders' saying (often erroneously attributed to Vince Lombardi), "Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing," describes the attitude of many coaches, athletes, fans, and sports reporters. That being the case, why should anyone care about doping? Equipment changes enhance performance -- from pole vaulting poles, to baseball bats, golf clubs, and their balls. These and other techniques are not deemed unsportsmanlike, even though they make it difficult to compare yesteryear's record books with today's.

Doping is different. Since it is banned, those who do it anyway are considered to have cheated their way to an unfair advantage. In contests where hundredths of a second can make the difference between a medal winner and an also ran, it's the individualistic equivalent of an entire team conspiring to throw a game. But many things are done to enhance performance -- training in the scientifically most efficient way, training at a higher altitude (gaining an oxygen boost upon return), or controlling diet. Athletes who can devote their full time to training will enhance their performance over those who cannot.

Like illegal street drugs, doping can also involve overdoses, and the use of impure and untested substances without quality control. Need athletes be protected from themselves? Injuries and death can occur in many sports; athletes "assume the risk," both legally and morally. One of the more dramatic examples are the brain injuries from football. Education programs may be desirable, but shouldn't adults be otherwise as free to do their own benefit-cost risk assessments of doping as of any athletic or other risk?

Perhaps organized athletics, including the Olympics, should consider abandoning anti-doping efforts that have proven ineffective -- certainly in insuring that every competing athlete is clean; that encourage subterfuge, lying, and risks to athletes' health, and ever more sophisticated efforts to design difficult-to-detect substances. Perhaps they should consider the sports equivalent of the Portugal approach. Let doping join the list of things athletes and their coaches can use to enhance performance -- using drugs that are regulated and used under the supervision of medical doctors and pharmacists.

Given the widespread practice of doping in all sports, the results would be little different from today. But it would be safer, less deceitful, and create a more honorable and level playing field for athletes, coaches, and fans alike.

# # #