Of the decisions made by world leaders, the most crucial are those affecting war and peace. Many voters were wary of Donald Trump's sense of judgment on these matters, illustrated by his "shoot from the hip" style.
Upon his election, wariness of Trump's judgment increased with his reckless talk about ripping up the Iran nuclear deal that was ratified by six nations, including the U.S. His reckless talk escalated, threatening North Korea with total destruction. His playground style name-calling exchange with North Korea's Kim Jong-un was enough to tank any hope of constructive negotiations.
Secretary of Defense James Mattis warned that war on the Korean peninsula would bring forth death and destruction unlike any we have previously seen. That seemed not to matter to Trump and his hawkish supporters, who even recommended a preemptive "bloody nose" strike to North Korea to serve as a warning.
It didn't matter to Trump and his hawkish supporters that every square yard of South Korea's capital is zeroed in by North Korean artillery, or how a nuclear war would end. If North Korea were totally destroyed, would American troops occupy a nation contaminated by nuclear radiation, even if China would tolerate American troops across the Yalu River south of Manchuria?
Responsible critics urged Trump to tone down his rhetoric. In a move that shocked the nation, especially the media and the foreign policy establishment, he did. Through indirect communication, he said he would accept invitation to talk directly with North Korea's Kim.
Trump insists that tough sanctions were responsible for Kim's invitation. In fact, Kim had previously expressed willingness to talk directly with American presidents. They had refused because such negotiations normally start at a lower level. In addition, there was - still is - the perception that direct talks would "legitimize" the North Korean dictator.
Trump's ostensible acceptance of such high-level talks even stymied bona fide liberals who had urged tamping down the rhetoric. The normally razor sharp, astute Rachel Maddow acted like a nervous wreck upon learning of Trump's surprise move. A guest on her show, the normally calm, insightful Nicolas Kristoff, sounded like an inarticulate bumbler as he labored to explain why Trump's move was a bad idea.
It was not Trump's dangerous talk but South Korea's president Moon, whose nation has the most to lose from war and most to gain from peace, that can be credited with Kim's outreach. That is, if that is an eventual result. In the past, any talk by South Korea of peaceful interaction with North Korea was discouraged. It's as if the main reason for American hostility to North Korea, protection of South Korea from invasion, was entirely forgotten.
Trump's uncharacteristically toned-down rhetoric should be welcomed relative to his reckless talk of reigning "fire and fury" on North Korea. Yes, there are things to worry about, but critics of negotiations with North Korea worry about the wrong things.
It's no use worrying about "legitimizing" North Korea's Kim. That family has controlled North Korea since the end of World War II. He's on the world stage whether we like it or not.
The most ludicrous worry is that Kim is "driving a wedge" between the U.S. and South Korea. That's totally ridiculous, if not irrelevant. If the two Koreas start getting along and risk of North Korean attack on South Korea subsides, the U.S. is not going to abandon South Korea as an ally.
With respect to economic development, economists have referred to South Korea as one of the "four tigers," along with Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong. South Korea is not about to fall into any kind of Communist trap. And anything that opens up North Korea in any way is bound to be an improvement for North Korean people, even assuming that Kim retains tight control.
Legitimate worries include setting the bar too high, preordaining possible talks to "failure." Another concern is that Trump will not rely on seasoned negotiators, believing himself to be the "master dealmaker." That could blow up the talks and bring us back to reckless talk of war.
As foreign policy matters are related, there is another concern on the horizon - the nomination of the hawkish Mike Pompeo for secretary of state. The recently sacked Tillerson had his limitations, including not filling important positions in the State Department such as ambassador to South Korea. But he seemed to appreciate the wisdom of diplomacy and served as a moderating force on Trump. Importantly, Tillerson urged honoring the Iran nuclear deal.
In contrast, Mike Pompeo has sided with Trump on tearing up the Iran nuclear deal and has honed his reputation as a hawkish warrior. There is a distinct logical inconsistency in urging North Korea to denuclearize, at the same time ripping up the deal that prevents Iran from further developing its nuclear program. Iran is living up to its end of the deal, and it is crucial that it be honored by the U.S.
If the U.S. does not honor the Iran deal, it not only plays into the hands of Iranian radicals but reduces the incentive for North Korea to trust the U.S. on any future deal, assuming any such agreement would come to pass. And that's still a long way off.
Mike Pompeo is hailed as an ambitious, intelligent, high achiever. It's a high achievement to get through West Point, regardless of class rank. To be first in his class puts him in exclusive company. He was a successful Army officer, followed by success in business.
But high achievement doesn't equal good judgment. Secretary of Defense, from 1961-1968, Robert McNamara is a prime example. McNamara, credited with a razor-sharp mind, pushed the "domino theory," if South Vietnam falls to the communists, so too would the rest of Asia.
That theory never made any sense then, and history has proven it disastrous.
Similarly, Mike Pompeo's achievements do not guarantee good judgment, especially on war and peace.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
His column appears Fridays in the Monroe Times.
Upon his election, wariness of Trump's judgment increased with his reckless talk about ripping up the Iran nuclear deal that was ratified by six nations, including the U.S. His reckless talk escalated, threatening North Korea with total destruction. His playground style name-calling exchange with North Korea's Kim Jong-un was enough to tank any hope of constructive negotiations.
Secretary of Defense James Mattis warned that war on the Korean peninsula would bring forth death and destruction unlike any we have previously seen. That seemed not to matter to Trump and his hawkish supporters, who even recommended a preemptive "bloody nose" strike to North Korea to serve as a warning.
It didn't matter to Trump and his hawkish supporters that every square yard of South Korea's capital is zeroed in by North Korean artillery, or how a nuclear war would end. If North Korea were totally destroyed, would American troops occupy a nation contaminated by nuclear radiation, even if China would tolerate American troops across the Yalu River south of Manchuria?
Responsible critics urged Trump to tone down his rhetoric. In a move that shocked the nation, especially the media and the foreign policy establishment, he did. Through indirect communication, he said he would accept invitation to talk directly with North Korea's Kim.
Trump insists that tough sanctions were responsible for Kim's invitation. In fact, Kim had previously expressed willingness to talk directly with American presidents. They had refused because such negotiations normally start at a lower level. In addition, there was - still is - the perception that direct talks would "legitimize" the North Korean dictator.
Trump's ostensible acceptance of such high-level talks even stymied bona fide liberals who had urged tamping down the rhetoric. The normally razor sharp, astute Rachel Maddow acted like a nervous wreck upon learning of Trump's surprise move. A guest on her show, the normally calm, insightful Nicolas Kristoff, sounded like an inarticulate bumbler as he labored to explain why Trump's move was a bad idea.
It was not Trump's dangerous talk but South Korea's president Moon, whose nation has the most to lose from war and most to gain from peace, that can be credited with Kim's outreach. That is, if that is an eventual result. In the past, any talk by South Korea of peaceful interaction with North Korea was discouraged. It's as if the main reason for American hostility to North Korea, protection of South Korea from invasion, was entirely forgotten.
Trump's uncharacteristically toned-down rhetoric should be welcomed relative to his reckless talk of reigning "fire and fury" on North Korea. Yes, there are things to worry about, but critics of negotiations with North Korea worry about the wrong things.
It's no use worrying about "legitimizing" North Korea's Kim. That family has controlled North Korea since the end of World War II. He's on the world stage whether we like it or not.
The most ludicrous worry is that Kim is "driving a wedge" between the U.S. and South Korea. That's totally ridiculous, if not irrelevant. If the two Koreas start getting along and risk of North Korean attack on South Korea subsides, the U.S. is not going to abandon South Korea as an ally.
With respect to economic development, economists have referred to South Korea as one of the "four tigers," along with Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong. South Korea is not about to fall into any kind of Communist trap. And anything that opens up North Korea in any way is bound to be an improvement for North Korean people, even assuming that Kim retains tight control.
Legitimate worries include setting the bar too high, preordaining possible talks to "failure." Another concern is that Trump will not rely on seasoned negotiators, believing himself to be the "master dealmaker." That could blow up the talks and bring us back to reckless talk of war.
As foreign policy matters are related, there is another concern on the horizon - the nomination of the hawkish Mike Pompeo for secretary of state. The recently sacked Tillerson had his limitations, including not filling important positions in the State Department such as ambassador to South Korea. But he seemed to appreciate the wisdom of diplomacy and served as a moderating force on Trump. Importantly, Tillerson urged honoring the Iran nuclear deal.
In contrast, Mike Pompeo has sided with Trump on tearing up the Iran nuclear deal and has honed his reputation as a hawkish warrior. There is a distinct logical inconsistency in urging North Korea to denuclearize, at the same time ripping up the deal that prevents Iran from further developing its nuclear program. Iran is living up to its end of the deal, and it is crucial that it be honored by the U.S.
If the U.S. does not honor the Iran deal, it not only plays into the hands of Iranian radicals but reduces the incentive for North Korea to trust the U.S. on any future deal, assuming any such agreement would come to pass. And that's still a long way off.
Mike Pompeo is hailed as an ambitious, intelligent, high achiever. It's a high achievement to get through West Point, regardless of class rank. To be first in his class puts him in exclusive company. He was a successful Army officer, followed by success in business.
But high achievement doesn't equal good judgment. Secretary of Defense, from 1961-1968, Robert McNamara is a prime example. McNamara, credited with a razor-sharp mind, pushed the "domino theory," if South Vietnam falls to the communists, so too would the rest of Asia.
That theory never made any sense then, and history has proven it disastrous.
Similarly, Mike Pompeo's achievements do not guarantee good judgment, especially on war and peace.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.
His column appears Fridays in the Monroe Times.
