March 14, 2018
Reports of President Trump considering Republican operative John Bolton as his new National Security Advisor is a scary idea
____________________________
With rumors of President Trump's current National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster's impending dismissal, reports have stated that the president is considering GOP hack John Bolton to fill that role in the near future. This troubles me. Bolton is a neocon in the mold of those including himself, who argued for and supported the horrible foreign policy blunder of invading Iraq. He is of the variety that feels that any foreign policy issue is easily solved by military invasion or combat operations. Bolton has argued for the pre-emptive bombing of North Korea's nuclear facilities, regardless of the horrible consequences of a retaliatory response from that country and the catastrophic effects it will have on South Korea and its population. No sane person will see this as productive that can have positive outcomes. In addition, John Bolton wants Israel to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear reactors and force the United States, in conjunction with Israel, to engage in war with Iran. If Americans think Iraq was a horrible foreign policy blunder, war with Iran will be worse. Iraq has always been a divided country of various people, with a Sunni Muslim minority, a Shia Muslim majority and a large Kurdish population. Saddam Hussein was a secular tyrant, who provided stability, albeit with crimes against its ethnic minorities, which included using chemical weapons to kill those citizens.
The Bush administration did not anticipate the tinderbox of rage that would envelop the country once the dictator was overthrown and the chaos that followed. The Sunni minority through the Ba'ath party controlled all levers of government had the majority of jobs and was shown favoritism by Saddam himself. The resentment of the Shia majority for those years under his rule exploded and caused needless casualties of American servicemen as a result. Even the Kurdish population had visions of independence once Saddam was captured, tried by a puppet court and executed. This made life difficult for the Iraqi population, who had to live with frequent bombings by the Sunni minority (many of whom were Iraqi Army officers and enlisted soldiers), who became a shadow army of terrorists and enemies of U.S. Army and Marines fighting in the country. It has taken years of constant fighting to bring about a tenuous peace, which is frequently interrupted by chaos and bombings that kill hundreds of Iraqis each year. I would venture to guess that if you took a poll of people who live in Iraq, many would prefer the stability of Saddam Hussein rather than the shallow peace that the American invasion has brought. Even the billions of taxpayer-funded training of the new Iraqi Army, with military hardware given to the Iraqi military, have not brought about a better future for the country.
John Bolton was a strong supporter of this fruitless endeavour by the Bush Administration. He foolishly believed that American military intervention would make for a sound foreign policy decision. Bolton argues to this day that it was a good idea to invade Iraq and that the so-called "surge" during the last year of the Bush Administration was a success, even though all it really did was provide a false respite in terms of peace and stability. It essentially bought off the Sunni fighters to stop fighting American forces, but that was never going to be a long-term solution.
Iran is a completely different beast. Even though a large segment of the population does not like the religious orthodoxy of the controlling Mullahs, Iranians are largely supportive of the nuclear program and generally love their country. The population does not share the divided nature of Iraq, which is smaller in size and population. The young Iranian population has positive opinions of the United States (but not its government) and is open to rapprochement with the United States. However, invading Iran would dramatically change that image of the American people. Iranians do not want to change their government through military force by an outside power. It will turn the population against invading forces and become an even worse quagmire than what Iraq turned out to be.
I think Bolton is part of the belief that relations with Iran began with the hostage crisis in the American embassy shortly before President Reagan took office. That shame that the American public felt was the catalyst for a hard line position from the American government since that time. However, that crisis was the culmination of years of oppressive rule by the Shah Pahlavi, who was installed as a puppet leader after the overthrow of a democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, who was head of government from 1951-53. His overthrow was a result of Mosaddegh wanting to nationalize Iranian oil fields, which scared Western oil companies because of damaging monetary losses in the international markets. The Shah ruled with an iron fist, using the Savaak, a brutal secret police force to jail, execute and punish Iranians who did not approve of his rule. This created an opening for religious mullahs, of which the Ayatollah Khomeini was the first and a fiery leader to boot. He had a passionate support from large swaths of the Iranian people. His exile by the Shah gave him immense power, and once the Shah was overthrown, culminated in the hostage crisis of American embassy staff.
John Bolton foolishly believes that the presence of American military personnel will give the Iranian people a reason to support an American-installed government. Has he not learned about the history of prior American involvement? I cannot believe President Trump wants to have this dunderhead as his chief national security advisor for American foreign policy. What makes him believe that war with Iran will have a positive outcome? Bolton has never served in combat (during Vietnam he served in the Maryland National Guard, which did not deploy to Southeast Asia at that time), but he seems to have the ear of prominent Republican establishment individuals. That is what makes me so discouraged regarding the future of our country. Another war, in addition to the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria, will break our military. The Department of Defense cannot bear the burden of another costly war, not to mention the successive and debilitating deployments of our military personnel, many of whom are veterans who are just now transitioning back to civilian life.
In addition to the stupid idea of war with Iran, John Bolton wants military action against the regime of North Korea. This will be even worse because the casualties of the South Korean population will be tragic. Seoul is within range of North Korean artillery, and the deaths relating to that barrage will pale in comparison to the civilian deaths in Iraq. American combat deaths will be far larger than those who gave their lives in Iraq. Conquering North Korea through ground forces will take at least a decade of constant fighting, and I dare say that we might have another stalemate since Russia and China could, in theory, provide covert support. I hope Bolton does not think we can fight both Iran and North Korea at the same time. North Korea could even launch untested ICBMs with nuclear warheads, which could reach Japan and the west coast of the United States. Who in their right mind outside of neocons thinks these military endeavours will be successful? And beneficial for the American people?
If President Trump does appoint John Bolton as his National Security Advisor, I am concerned for America and the future of the country. Mr. Bolton is an irresponsible war hawk and lacks any foresight into what is sound advice to give to the American president. It will show that Trump does not have any idea of what good governance is, nor what type of American foreign policy will be good for the country. John Bolton is a fool, who has no business having the ear of the Leader of the Free World. If America is in a constant state of war, with massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and many Americans close to the poverty line, the great experiment that is the American idea will end in ignominy. John Bolton, through President Trump, will be the architect of that demise.
The Bush administration did not anticipate the tinderbox of rage that would envelop the country once the dictator was overthrown and the chaos that followed. The Sunni minority through the Ba'ath party controlled all levers of government had the majority of jobs and was shown favoritism by Saddam himself. The resentment of the Shia majority for those years under his rule exploded and caused needless casualties of American servicemen as a result. Even the Kurdish population had visions of independence once Saddam was captured, tried by a puppet court and executed. This made life difficult for the Iraqi population, who had to live with frequent bombings by the Sunni minority (many of whom were Iraqi Army officers and enlisted soldiers), who became a shadow army of terrorists and enemies of U.S. Army and Marines fighting in the country. It has taken years of constant fighting to bring about a tenuous peace, which is frequently interrupted by chaos and bombings that kill hundreds of Iraqis each year. I would venture to guess that if you took a poll of people who live in Iraq, many would prefer the stability of Saddam Hussein rather than the shallow peace that the American invasion has brought. Even the billions of taxpayer-funded training of the new Iraqi Army, with military hardware given to the Iraqi military, have not brought about a better future for the country.
John Bolton was a strong supporter of this fruitless endeavour by the Bush Administration. He foolishly believed that American military intervention would make for a sound foreign policy decision. Bolton argues to this day that it was a good idea to invade Iraq and that the so-called "surge" during the last year of the Bush Administration was a success, even though all it really did was provide a false respite in terms of peace and stability. It essentially bought off the Sunni fighters to stop fighting American forces, but that was never going to be a long-term solution.
Iran is a completely different beast. Even though a large segment of the population does not like the religious orthodoxy of the controlling Mullahs, Iranians are largely supportive of the nuclear program and generally love their country. The population does not share the divided nature of Iraq, which is smaller in size and population. The young Iranian population has positive opinions of the United States (but not its government) and is open to rapprochement with the United States. However, invading Iran would dramatically change that image of the American people. Iranians do not want to change their government through military force by an outside power. It will turn the population against invading forces and become an even worse quagmire than what Iraq turned out to be.
I think Bolton is part of the belief that relations with Iran began with the hostage crisis in the American embassy shortly before President Reagan took office. That shame that the American public felt was the catalyst for a hard line position from the American government since that time. However, that crisis was the culmination of years of oppressive rule by the Shah Pahlavi, who was installed as a puppet leader after the overthrow of a democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, who was head of government from 1951-53. His overthrow was a result of Mosaddegh wanting to nationalize Iranian oil fields, which scared Western oil companies because of damaging monetary losses in the international markets. The Shah ruled with an iron fist, using the Savaak, a brutal secret police force to jail, execute and punish Iranians who did not approve of his rule. This created an opening for religious mullahs, of which the Ayatollah Khomeini was the first and a fiery leader to boot. He had a passionate support from large swaths of the Iranian people. His exile by the Shah gave him immense power, and once the Shah was overthrown, culminated in the hostage crisis of American embassy staff.
John Bolton foolishly believes that the presence of American military personnel will give the Iranian people a reason to support an American-installed government. Has he not learned about the history of prior American involvement? I cannot believe President Trump wants to have this dunderhead as his chief national security advisor for American foreign policy. What makes him believe that war with Iran will have a positive outcome? Bolton has never served in combat (during Vietnam he served in the Maryland National Guard, which did not deploy to Southeast Asia at that time), but he seems to have the ear of prominent Republican establishment individuals. That is what makes me so discouraged regarding the future of our country. Another war, in addition to the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria, will break our military. The Department of Defense cannot bear the burden of another costly war, not to mention the successive and debilitating deployments of our military personnel, many of whom are veterans who are just now transitioning back to civilian life.
In addition to the stupid idea of war with Iran, John Bolton wants military action against the regime of North Korea. This will be even worse because the casualties of the South Korean population will be tragic. Seoul is within range of North Korean artillery, and the deaths relating to that barrage will pale in comparison to the civilian deaths in Iraq. American combat deaths will be far larger than those who gave their lives in Iraq. Conquering North Korea through ground forces will take at least a decade of constant fighting, and I dare say that we might have another stalemate since Russia and China could, in theory, provide covert support. I hope Bolton does not think we can fight both Iran and North Korea at the same time. North Korea could even launch untested ICBMs with nuclear warheads, which could reach Japan and the west coast of the United States. Who in their right mind outside of neocons thinks these military endeavours will be successful? And beneficial for the American people?
If President Trump does appoint John Bolton as his National Security Advisor, I am concerned for America and the future of the country. Mr. Bolton is an irresponsible war hawk and lacks any foresight into what is sound advice to give to the American president. It will show that Trump does not have any idea of what good governance is, nor what type of American foreign policy will be good for the country. John Bolton is a fool, who has no business having the ear of the Leader of the Free World. If America is in a constant state of war, with massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and many Americans close to the poverty line, the great experiment that is the American idea will end in ignominy. John Bolton, through President Trump, will be the architect of that demise.
This is a thoughtful exercise comparing the follies of war, the misjudgment of Iraqi invasion and its horrible consequences and the distorted view presented to the American public about the dangers or Iran and North Korea to be tackled by a protagonist war views that Bolton will bring to Foreign policy at an ill fated time. There must be a desire among the American public to learn the truth so that informed opinion can shape the way we think and legislate any drastic action.
ReplyDelete