ResCon1

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).

The Stock Market Correction Was Overdue Irrespective of the Coronavirus and Is Nothing to Fear

The Stock Market Correction Was Overdue Irrespective of the Coronavirus and Is Nothing to Fear

By John R Guardiano on February 28, 2020

Market corrections are regular and healthy occurrences, and the rebound to new highs may already be underway.

CNBC reports that U.S. equities markets lost more than $3.18 trillion this week as they suffered their worst weekly sell-off since the 2008 financial crisis. So, should you should divest yourself of all stocks and hide your money under the mattress until the panic subsides?

No, of course not. Stock market corrections occur with some regularity and are to be expected. They actually are healthy and beneficial because they help to check and rein in what Alan Greenspan famously called “irrational exuberance.”

Market corrections don’t mean the market is collapsing; they mean the market is consolidating and correcting equities valuations that got ahead of themselves and were artificially inflated by the bull run. This is a good thing because it sets the stage for further gains based on a more accurate assessment of market and corporate fundamentals.

Historical Context. “There have been 26 market corrections since World War II, with an average decline of 13.7% over an average of four months,” reports CNBC’s Thomas Franck. “Recoveries have taken four months on average,” and the upward trajectory of the market has remained intact.

There is “one big caveat”: if we fall into bear market territory, then “the losses stretch to 20 percent [and] there’s more pain ahead and a longer recovery time,” Franck notes.

But for a bear market to occur, we’d almost certainly have to suffer a recession, which is exceedingly unlikely, given the underlying strength of the U.S. economy and the U.S. consumer.

Right now, the equities markets are overreacting to fears of the coronavirus and how it might adversely affect Chinese economic growth and world economic growth more generally. CNBC’s Fred Imbert reports:

“What we’ve seen the last couple of days is pure liquidation,” said Keith Lerner, chief market strategist at Truist/SunTrust Advisory. “Investors are saying ‘get me out at any cost.’”

“The most important dynamic in the market is uncertainty,” Lerner added. “People are selling first and asking questions later.”

When traders and investors are selling first and asking questions later, that’s a surefire sign of an overreaction and an overshoot to the downside.

Moreover, just before this correction occurred, the major stock indexes—the SPY, QQQ, and DIA, for instance—had all hit 52-week highs. The market had been climbing higher and higher almost without interruption for some time. Thus we were due for a pullback. It was inevitable.

Inevitable Correction. The coronavirus, in fact, may have been the occasion or pretext for traders and investors to do that which they had been angling to do for weeks, but never did because of irrational exuberance and the fear of missing out on even greater highs. As Stephen Auth, CIO of Global Equities for Federated Hermes, told Fox Business:

This correction was overdue. We had a 17% run without a pullback. The last 16 times we’ve had something like that, we’ve had a 10% correction…

The coronavirus is a good excuse for one [a correction]. It is scary. We don’t know, really, how it’s going to play out. But at the end of the day, the global economy will bounce back from this. It’s at worse a short-term hit.

The “fact is,” writes Luke Burgess at Energy and Capital, “last week the Dow was trading 11% over it’s 200-day moving average. So, again, a market correction was inevitable with or without coronavirus.”

And a rebound off of our current lows is just as inevitable, and sooner than you might think.

In the three weeks before Christmas 2018, for instance, “so-called ‘U.S. equity style boxes’ made popular by Morningstar all fell by between 15-19 percent,” writes Rob Isbitts in Forbes. Lower-volatility stocks, meanwhile, suffered declines of 10-20 percent, he adds.

“The impact was so severe across the board, it wiped out all, nearly all, or more than all the gains of the prior year and a half in all nine [major] stock market segments…” Yet, “the stock market rebounded quickly after Christmas [2018], and that rally has stretched into the start of 2019,” Isbitts explains.

In fact, the rally extended throughout 2019 and into 2020 almost without interruption, as Annekan Tappe observed in a Dec.29, 2019, year-end analysis of the equities markets for CNN Business.

US stocks had a fantastic year in 2019, with all three major indexes climbing more than 20 percent. But that performance came at the price of volatility and uncertainty.

Last year ended on a sour note, with the worst December since the Great Recession leading to the first annual stock market losses in three years. This year was a rebound—and then some—but it wasn’t easy.

Trade and the Fed, the two big themes of 2019, pushed and pulled on equities. The Fed won out, and stocks soared. Investors got quite a bit of whiplash along the way.

The whiplash continues; but so, too, do the market’s gains. Stay invested and prepare for the next leg-up: because, as sure as the sun rises, it’s coming—in spite of the coronavirus.

Feature photo credit: Investor Junkie.

The Media and the Politicians Color and Distort the Coronavirus and Stock Market Plunge

The Media and the Politicians Color and Distort the Coronavirus and Stock Market Plunge

By John R Guardiano on February 27, 2020

Two big and dramatic developments, the coronavirus and stock market plunge, are dominating the news. To understand these events and their true significance, you need to understand the political and journalistic prisms through which these events are being reported and assessed.

First, the media have a professional interest in hyping the threat from the coronavirus and exaggerating the dangers from the stock market plunge. Doing so draws in readership and viewership.

Staid and boring news, after all. doesn’t sell; dramatic and consequential news does. This doesn’t mean the coronavirus and stock market plunge aren’t significant events; they obviously are. But it does mean that they need to be put into perspective and viewed in historical context.

Second, we live in hyper-polarized times, politically, and are in the midst of a fiercely contested presidential election, with one-third of the Senate and all of the House of Representatives up for reelection.

This means that political candidates running and on the ballot have every incentive to seize upon whatever bad news they can to try and score political points against their opponents.

Thus much of the alarmist commentary that we’re hearing about the coronavirus and stock market plunge 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.

So, consider the source of your news and take in information with a skeptical eye. Things probably aren’t as bad as they seem. As Ecclesiastes 1:9 puts it, there is nothing new under the sun and we’ve most likely been here before. Do your own fair-minded reporting and analysis.

We’ll have more to say about the coronavirus and the stock market plunge. For now, it’s important to understand the interests and incentives of those who are reporting on these developments (the media), as well as those who are helping to drive media coverage (the politicians): because as Agent Scully put it in the X-Files: “The truth is out there. But so are lies.”

Feature photo credit: Medium.