ResCon1

Trump’s Ignorance of the Taliban Undermines America’s Negotiating Posture in Afghanistan

Trump’s Ignorance of the Taliban Undermines America’s Negotiating Posture in Afghanistan

By John R Guardiano on March 4, 2020

As we’ve explained, pursuing a diplomatic solution in Afghanistan after nearly 19 years of fighting makes sense, but only if we are clear-eyed and sober-minded about who the Taliban are and what they are about.

And only if we maintain a firm and steadfast commitment to the legitimately elected government of Afghanistan and are willing to walk away from negotiations if the Taliban renege on their agreements and act in bad faith.

Unfortunately, as we reported Monday, President Trump appears to have little to no understanding of the Taliban, and the only thing he seems firm and steadfast about are bugging out of Afghanistan and withdrawing U.S. troops there.

Weakness. Trump’s palpable and pathetic rhetorical weakness vis-à-vis the Taliban undermines America’s diplomatic leverage and make it immeasurably more difficult to secure an enduring and sustainable agreement which protects U.S. security interests and the Americans homeland.

This is especially true give that the Taliban do not view negotiations in the same way as we do. For the United States and other democracies, negotiations are a means to reconcile differences and arrive at a mutually beneficial accord or modus vivendi.

Not so for the Taliban. As Gen. Jack Keane (Ret.), told the Heritage Foundation Jan. 28, 2020:

The Taliban leadership position is very clear. Their top priority is to get the United States to sign an agreement to withdraw completely. They are willing to make just about any statement to get that, any promise to get that.

They’ll do a ceasefire to get that. They’ll promise negotiations with the Afghans to get that. And why do they want that?

In their words, it’s a massive boost to the movement. It amounts to a U.S. admission of defeat, and it guarantees the legitimacy of their Islamic Emirate, which is what they call Afghanistan.

They believe the agreement will help tip the military and diplomatic balance in favor of the Taliban, and help them to eventually overthrow the Afghan government. [That is] something they have never, ever given up [on].

The [Taliban] leaders are explicit. The agreement with the United States is a means of taking control of the Afghan government, not reaching a political settlement…

They don’t want a political settlement. They don’t want to share power. They don’t want to participate in a democracy.

Why is that? They’re very practical. [Some] 85% of the country reject the Taliban [and have rejected them] for 19 years. This in the most unpopular insurgency in modern times.

“The Taliban,” writes Bloomberg’s Eli Lake, “has always considered itself Afghanistan’s legitimate government in exile. This is why it sends its minions to attack polling places during elections, as it did last year.”

In short, the Taliban are not a legitimate political faction that simply wants a place at the decision-making table. To the contrary: they are hardcore fanatics, who have never wavered in their goal of reconquering all of Afghanistan and establishing a so-called Islamic Emirate there.

Yet, Trump acts like the Taliban are just another negotiating partner; and that negotiating a peace deal with them is no different, really, than negotiating a real estate deal with a mob boss or union official in Atlantic City. You split the differences and everyone walks away happy and content.

Negotiations. But that’s not how the Taliban think. They think that negotiations are a way for them to impose their will on a weak American president who wants out of Afghanistan, and to overthrow what they see as an illegitimate government in Kabul that has no right to rule.

It would help America’s negotiating posture if Trump showed some indication that he understands this. Instead, he repeats discredited Taliban propaganda that they are “tired of fighting.”

No, Mr. President, the Taliban are not tired of fighting. The Taliban fight—and negotiate—to win. And their continued fighting is the real obstacle to peace in Afghanistan.

Feature photo credit: France 24.

‘Super Tuesday’ Will Set the Battle Lines for the Likely Democratic Convention Showdown Between Sanders and Biden

‘Super Tuesday’ Will Set the Battle Lines for the Likely Democratic Convention Showdown Between Sanders and Biden

By John R Guardiano on March 3, 2020

Wins and losses matter tonight, but the numbers and demographic data behind those wins and losses matter even more.

Joe Biden’s smashing victory in South Carolina Saturday (Feb. 29) has given him newfound momentum and a shot at winning the Democratic presidential nomination.

Nonetheless, Biden lags behind frontrunner Bernie Sanders in what is now clearly a two-man race, even though Elizabeth Warren and Michael Bloomberg are still formally running.

A big problem for Biden is the extraordinarily compressed primary calendar. Less than three days separate the South Carolina Primary from Super Tuesday (today, Mar. 3), in which voters in 14 states will go to the polls and choose roughly one-third of the Democratic Convention delegates.

This means that Biden has had virtually no time to capitalize on his South Carolina win—and no time since then to persuade Democratic primary voters that he is the man to lead them in their effort to eject Donald Trump from the White House.

Early Voting. Moreover, because of early voting, in some states, many Democratic primary voters already have cast their ballot and thus are not amenable to persuasion regardless of the results in South Carolina.

Sanders, meanwhile, has raised a boatload of money, mostly online through small-sized contributions, and has developed formidable grassroots political organizations in many states.

Financially and organizationally, Biden simply cannot compete with the Sanders juggernaut.

Biden does, though, have momentum and the full force of the Democratic Party establishment behind him. The establishment fears Bernie because it thinks he’s a general election loser who will be a drag on the party’s Senate and House candidates.

Biden also is helped by the fact that Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar dropped out of the race yesterday and endorsed him (Biden). Political analysts believe that centrist and moderate Democrats who would have voted for Buttigieg or Klobuchar are likely now to vote for Biden.

In addition, Biden benefits from the continued presence in the race of Elizabeth Warren, who takes votes away from Sanders. Sanders, meanwhile, benefits from the continued presence of Michael Bloomberg, who takes votes away from Biden.

So, where does that leave us, and what should we look for this evening when the results start rolling in?

First, even if, as expected, Biden mostly loses to Sanders tonight, can he keep these primary contests sufficiently close such that he gains a significant share of the Super Tuesday delegates?

The Democrats, remember, award their delegates proportionately in accordance with a candidate’s share of the vote, provided that candidate wins at least 15 percent.

Proportional delegate awards are especially important in California and Texas—big, delegate-rich states where a 15 percent showing at the local or district level can translate into delegates.

Thus more important than who wins individual states today is how they win and with what percent of the vote, both statewide and in specific local districts.

This matters: because even if, at the end of the primary season, Sanders ends up winning a plurality of the delegates, he could still lose the nomination to Biden at the party’s convention.

The reason: Democratic Party rules require that a candidate win a majority of the delegates, not a plurality.

Consequently, a deadlocked convention could decide, on a second ballot, to nominate Biden even if he won fewer delegates during the primaries than Sanders.

The delegate count thus matters in a big way now because large numbers of delegates (one-third on Super Tuesday) are being awarded.

Sanders needs to win an outright majority of the delegates, so that he can stop the party establishment from denying him the nomination.

Biden, conversely, needs to keep these primary contests close and prevent Sanders from winning a majority of the delegates, so that he (Biden) can win the nomination at the convention.

Second, can Bernie win a respectable share of the black vote, especially in the South?

This matters because African Americans are a core Democratic Party constituency whose support helps to confer legitimacy on a Democratic presidential candidate. And legitimacy becomes very important in the event that neither Sanders nor Biden win a majority of the delegates and the convention, therefore, must decide whom to nominate.

If, for example, Biden wins the black vote overwhelmingly on Super Tuesday as he did in South Carolina, then it becomes appreciably harder for Sanders to lay claim to the nomination even if he (Sanders) has a plurality of the delegates.

That is because Biden and his supporters will charge, with some accuracy and some justification, that Bernie has trouble winning black support; and that is a huge electoral handicap for any Democrats running against Trump.

Conversely, if Bernie can win a respectable share of the black vote, then he can say, with some accuracy and some justification, that he has broad-based electoral appeal and should be the nominee since he has won a plurality of the delegates.

In short, Super Tuesday won’t determine whom the Democrats nominate to take on Trump. However, Super Tuesday will set the battle lines for the likely showdown between Joe and Bernie at the party’s convention in Milwaukee, July 13-16.

Wins and losses matter tonight, but the numbers and demographic data behind those wins and losses matter even more. Stay tuned.

Feature photo credit: New York Times: results of the Democratic Party’s 2020 South Carolina Primary.

Trump’s Afghanistan Peace Deal Could Possibly Work, But Not If He Indulges His Isolationist Fantasies

Trump’s Afghanistan Peace Deal Could Possibly Work, But Not If He Indulges His Isolationist Fantasies

By John R Guardiano on March 2, 2020

We’ve alluded before to the sharp divergence between President Trump’s reckless and counterproductive rhetoric about Afghanistan and his more careful and deliberative actions vis-à-vis the country.

Rhetorically, Trump is eager to bug out of Afghanistan and end so-called endless wars. Yet, his actions there have been far more sober and deliberative than his foolish rhetoric suggests.

The danger is that Trump’s isolationist instincts will win out and that the disaster we’ve seen unfolding in Syria as a result of Trump’s sudden bug out there will be repeated in Afghanistan, albeit with far worse results.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, this same dichotomy exists in the new peace agreement that the Trump administration signed with the Taliban Saturday. The early indications are that Trump intends go all-in on the deal and live out his isolationist fantasies.

Diplomacy. Of course, pursuing a diplomatic solution in Afghanistan is a good idea. As Michèle Flournoy and Stephen J. Hadley explain in the Washington Post, “What is the alternative? After more than 18 years of war, neither the Taliban nor the combined U.S., Afghan and coalition forces have been able to defeat the other.”

But for diplomacy to be successful and not simply a ruse for surrender and defeat, the United States has to be determined to walk away from the negotiations if the Taliban does not act in good faith and fails to meet its obligations under the agreement.

The Department of Defense and the Department of State clearly understand this. Which is why both the Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, and the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, have both stressed that the agreement is “conditions-based.”

What Esper and Pompeo mean is this: If the facts on the ground in Afghanistan do not correspond with what was agreed to, then the planned withdrawal of U.S. troops will be called off.

“This deal doesn’t depend upon trusting anyone,” Pompeo told Face the Nation’s Margaret Brennan.

It has a deep, complex, well-thought-out, multi-month-negotiated verification complex and mechanism by which we can observe and hold every member of the agreement accountable.

We’ll do that. It’s not about trust. It’s about what happens on the ground, not only yesterday which was an important day, but in the days that follow.

“This is a conditions-based agreement,” added Esper in the Washington Post.

As this is a conditions-based agreement, if we assess that the Taliban is honoring the terms of the deal, the United States will reduce its military presence to 8,600 troops within a matter of months.

This drawdown will be part of a NATO-approved plan for commensurate reductions by other troop-contributing nations.

If progress on the political front between the Taliban and the current Afghan government continues, then the United States and its partners will further reduce our presence toward a goal of zero in 2021. If progress stalls, then our drawdown likely will be suspended, as well.

So far so good. The problem, as always, is the man at the top: President Trump, who is clearly singing a different tune.

Time-Based Deal. For Trump, the agreement is not conditions-based; it is time-based. Indeed, time, not conditions, are the determinative factor. We’ve been in Afghanistan for almost two decades, damn it, and, well, it’s just time to get out!

That’s a paraphrase of what Trump said, but it is an accurate paraphrase! Look for yourself. Here are Trump’s exact words, in full context, at a White House press briefing Saturday:

I’d like to congratulate all those incredible people that have worked for so long on our endless war in Afghanistan—19 years, going on 20 years…

We’ve had tremendous success in Afghanistan in the killing of terrorists, but it’s time, after all these years, to go and to bring our people back home. We want to bring our people back home.

And, again, it’s been—it’s been a long journey in Afghanistan in particular. It’s been a very long journey. It’s been a hard journey for everybody. We’re very largely a law enforcement group; and that’s not what our soldiers are all about. They’re fighters. They’re the greatest fighters in the world.

As you know, we’ve destroyed, in Syria and Iraq, 100 percent of the ISIS caliphate. One hundred percent. We have thousands of prisoners. We have killed ISIS fighters by the thousands—and, likewise, in Afghanistan.

But now it’s time for somebody else to do that work, and that’ll be the Taliban, and it could be surrounding countries. There are many countries that surround Afghanistan that can help. We’re 8,000 miles away.

So we’ll be bringing it down to 8,000 [U.S. troops], to approximately 8,600 [U.S. troops]—in that vicinity—and then we’ll make our final decision [at] some point in the fairly near future.

But this was a very spirited agreement. There was a lot of—there was a lot of talk. There was a lot of everything. They’ve been trying to get this for many years. And just—it’s time.

So I just want to thank everybody. I want to congratulate everybody. I really believe the Taliban wants to do something to show that we’re not all wasting time.

If bad things happen, we’ll go back. I let the people know: We’ll go back and we’ll go back so fast, and we’ll go back with a force like nobody has ever seen. And I don’t think that will be necessary. I hope it’s not necessary.

Yes, Trump talks about going back into Afghanistan; but that presumes we leave altogether first and let things fall apart.

In other words, Trump is determined to get out first and ask the hard questions later: because, in his mind, “it’s time” and we can always go back in if we have to.

Naïveté. This is naive and dangerous talk from the Commander in Chief. Leaving Afghanistan and then going back are not nearly as easy as Trump glibly suggests. And letting Afghanistan fall apart poses a host of dangerous risks to American national security and the American homeland.

Trump’s reckless rhetoric also makes it much more difficult for him to achieve an enduring and sustainable peace agreement with the Taliban. They surely can sense, after all, Trump’s weakness and his palpable desire for a deal, any deal.

On the other hand, we do have 14 months under this agreement before U.S. troops would leave Afghanistan altogether.

A lot can and will happen between now and then. We can only hope and pray that Trump—or his successor—comes to his senses and recognizes the danger and folly of acting out his isolationist fantasies in Afghanistan.

Feature photo credit: Live Science.

Democratic Political Opportunism Confuses and Distorts the Coronavirus Debate

Democratic Political Opportunism Confuses and Distorts the Coronavirus Debate

By John R Guardiano on March 1, 2020

This is the second in a three-part series on the coronavirus. In our first post, we assessed the coronavirus as a public health problem. Here we assess the virus as a domestic political dispute.

Is the federal government doing enough to stop the coronavirus? Is Trump handling the problem well? What about Congress? Have they appropriated enough money to combat this latest public health menace?

These are all fair questions, of course. In a representative democracy, we should vigorously debate important matters of public health and public policy.

What confuses and distorts that debate, though, is political opportunism, especially in an election year, when politicians try to exploit the crisis for rank political gain.

Unfortunately, we’ve seen such opportunism from Democratic politicians and their media allies.

Partisan Attacks. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, for instance, lambasted President Trump for what he called “a premature travel ban to and from China.” The travel ban, Schumer tweeted Feb. 5, 2020, is part of Trump’s “ongoing war against immigrants.”

Trump signed an executive order Jan. 31, 2020, that banned all foreign nationals who had been in China from entering the United States. This was a reasonable preventative measure given that the coronavirus originated in China; and that more than 91 percent of the reported cases thus far are in mainland China.

Indeed, Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told MSBC’s Chris Matthews (Friday, Feb. 28, 2020) that the Chinese travel ban “was a very good idea” because it helped to stop the spread of the virus.

Schumer himself seems to have come around to this understandings because, notes Dinesh D’Souza, he has since deleted his tweet.

Still, Schumer’s eagerness to use the coronavirus as a political cudgel with which to beat Trump and the GOP is emblematic of how political considerations are confusing and distorting the public dialogue and debate. As we observed here at ResCon1:

Much of the alarmist commentary that we’re hearing about the coronavirus… is attributable to politicians trying to win votes and media outlets trying to draw in readers and viewers.

That many journalists and media outlets are politically partisan and unabashedly anti-Trump further compounds this problem.

Political Distortion. For example, a reporter at yesterday’s White House press briefing asked Trump if he regretted using the word “hoax” when discussing the coronavirus at a political rally in North Charleston, South Carolina.

“Somebody [in the United States] is now dead from this [virus]. Do you regret using that kind of talk” the reporter solemnly intoned.

Trump explained that he obviously was not using the word hoax to refer to the coronavirus. Instead, he was describing Democratic attacks on him and his administration as a “hoax.”

Democrats have charged Trump with not doing enough to stop the spread of the virus, and Trump said that this is their new “hoax.”

What Trump meant was apparent to anyone who listened to Trump’s remarks. Yet, some journalists, such as CNBC’s Thomas Franck, parroted the Democrats’ charge and reported that Trump was suggesting that the coronavirus itself is a “hoax.”

Democratic presidential candidates, likewise, have charged Trump with “defunding” the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Michael Bloomberg) and “wiping out” its budget and the budget of the National Institutes of Health (Joe Biden).

But as the Lauran Neergaard and Calvin Woodward point out in the Associated Press (AP), it’s “wrong to say [that these] agencies have seen their money cut.” It is true that “CDC grant program for state and local public health emergency preparedness” have been cut.

However, they note, that funding decline was “set in motion by a congressional budget measure that predates Trump.”

President Trump. In truth, the president appears to be doing a good job handling the coronavirus. He’s requested additional funding from Congress to address the problem, and has said that if Congress wants to provide more money, he’ll take it.

Moreover, with top public health officials in tow, he held two press conferences in three days last week to inform the American people about what, specifically, he and his administration are doing to stop the spread of the virus.

The travel restrictions to and from China have been the most consequential and decisive actions that Trump has taken thus far.

He’s also had American returning from high-risk areas overseas quarantined and monitored by public health officials; declared a public health emergency; and established a White House Coronavirus Task Force now headed by Vice President Mike Pence.

All in all, not bad. What is bad is the shameless and counterproductive politicizing of a problem that should be a nonpartisan or bipartisan concern: public health and the safety and well-being of the American people.

In a democracy, disagreement and debate are perfectly fine. But that disagreement and debate should be factually based and made in good faith. Unfortunately, that too often has not been the case with respect to the coronavirus.

We can and must do better.

Feature photo credit: CNN.

The Coronavirus Is a Public Health Problem, But It is Not a Death Sentence

The Coronavirus Is a Public Health Problem, But It is Not a Death Sentence

By John R Guardiano on February 29, 2020

The coronavirus has dominated the news, but with more heat than light, I’m afraid. That’s because it really is three stories in one—or one story with three interrelated subplots or angles.

There’s the public health angle, the political angle, and the economic angle. All three of these subplots or angles shape and affect media coverage of the virus and thus need to be explained.

Otherwise, we cannot understand the virus’ true significance—and we will be unable to distinguish between fair and legitimate points or arguments on the one hand and political spin and propaganda on the other hand.

In this post, we’ll address the public health angle or subplot to the coronavirus. Subsequent posts will address the political and economic angles to the story.

Public Health. The coronavirus is, most importantly, a public health problem. It is a new respiratory virus that, according to John Hopkins University’s Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE), has infected nearly 87,000 people worldwide, mostly in mainland China. Nearly 3,000 people have died as a result.

In the United States, 71 people have contracted the virus and one person has died as a result. Public health officials and epidemiologists say these numbers will increase, both domestically and internationally. However, they do not know how widespread and pervasive the virus will become.

We do know that, for most people, the coronavirus is not a death sentence.

Indeed, most who contra c t the virus suffer only mild symptoms and quickly recover. Fatalities typically occur among the frail and the elderly, those with compromised immune systems, and people with other complicating medical conditions and ailments.

Thus the first and only person in the United States so far to die from the coronavirus was a man in his 50s with underlying health conditions.

We also know that the coronavirus is similar to the influenza virus or flu, which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates has caused 12,000 to 61,000 deaths annually since 2010. Yet, despite the surprisingly high number of flu-induced deaths or fatalities, there is no widespread fear or panic over the influenza virus.

In part, that is because the flu has been with us for some time and thus is well understood. It also is because we have flu vaccines.

There is not yet a vaccine for the coronavirus. The United States is working to develop such a vaccine, but it won’t be available for an estimated 12-18 moths at the earliest, says Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Still, we know that basic commonsense precautionary measures which prevent transmission of the influenza virus are also highly effective in preventing transmission of the coronavirus.

The coronavirus is “a respiratory virus,” explains the CDC’s Principal Deputy Director, Anne Schuchat, M.D.:

It’s spread in a similar way to the common cold or to influenza. It’s spread through coughs and sneezes.

And so, those everyday sensible measures that we tell people to do every year with the flu are important here: covering your cough; staying home when you’re sick; and washing your hands.

[These are] tried and true ([albeit] not very exciting) [preventative] measures, [and] really important ways that you can prevent the spread of respiratory viruses.

The bottom line, according to the CDC: “for the general American public, who are unlikely to be exposed to this virus at this time, the immediate health risk from COVID-19, [aka the coronavirus], is considered low.”

But because the coronavirus is spreading internationally, there will be more cases here in the United States. We cannot, after all, entirely seal ourselves off from the rest of the world.

However, these incidents should be, for the most part, quite manageable and will not result in widespread death, at least when compared to the similar influenza virus.

Politics. Because the coronavirus is a public health problem, it is also necessarily a political story. Governments, after all, have a duty to take reasonable and effective preventative measures to stop a pandemic from occurring and arresting its development should a pandemic occur.

We’ll address that subplot or angle in a subsequent post.

Feature photo credit: John Hopkins University’s Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE).