Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “Donald Trump”

Trump’s Failure to Act Early on the Coronavirus Has Endangered American Lives

President Trump is obviously not responsible for the coronavirus. However, he is responsible for his administration’s weak and tardy response to the coronavirus— and for failing to anticipate the gravity of the problem, even as evidence mounted in other countries (such as Italy) that without early and decisive action tens of thousands of Americans, potentially, could die.

Trump, moreover, has repeatedly downplayed the problem; lied about the availability of testing to address the problem; shirked responsibility for confronting the problem; and, most pathetically and disgracefully, tried to blame others—mainly his predecessor, Barack Obama—for his own (Trump) administration’s belated and inadequate response to the problem.

Trump’s loyal base may not hold him accountable for his utter inability to lead during this crisis, but history surely will. Indeed, as Peter Wehner observes in The Atlantic

The president and his administration are responsible for grave, costly errors—most especially the epic manufacturing failures in diagnostic testing, the decision to test too few people, the delay in expanding testing to labs outside the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and problems in the supply chain.

These mistakes have left us blind and badly behind the curve, and, for a few crucial weeks, they created a false sense of security.

What we now know is that the coronavirus silently spread for several weeks, without us being aware of it and while we were doing nothing to stop it.

Containment and mitigation efforts could have significantly slowed its spread at an early, critical point, but we frittered away that opportunity.

Leadership. Let’s be clear. Bureaucratic errors happen. No one blames Trump for bureaucratic errors that are beyond his control.

But that’s why we elect political leaders: to ensure that bureaucratic errors are quickly corrected and do not forestall the type of timely and decisive action needed to safeguard the American people during a crisis

Yet, there is absolutely no evidence that Trump acted with dispatch even as the federal bureaucracy literally stopped or prevented early testing for the coronavirus.

To the contrary: Trump was more concerned with downplaying what he said was a minor problem that would soon disappear.

But we don’t elect presidents so that, in times of national crisis, they can throw up their hands and blame the bureaucracy (or their predecessor three years removed), which is what Trump has done. Instead, we elect presidents so that they can tame, manage, and rein in the bureaucracy.

The Republicans who foisted Trump upon us called this “draining the swamp” and “putting America first.” Yet, when it mattered most, Trump was asleep at the switch.

He didn’t drain the swamp; he bathed in it. And he didn’t put America first; he put his own twisted political priorities first. 

Trump admitted, for instance, that he preferred to leave Americans stranded on a cruise ship off the coast of California after it was discovered that some of the passengers there were infected with the coronavirus.

Politico’s Dan Diamond reports that “health department officials and Vice President Mike Pence came up with a plan to evacuate thousands of passengers” as a way to stop the virus from spreading and infecting many more people as had happened on a similar cruise ship, the Diamond Princess.

“But President Donald Trump had a different idea,” Diamond writes: “Leave the infected passengers on board—which would help keep the number of U.S. coronavirus cases as low as possible.”

Wehner reports:

“I like the numbers,” Trump said. “I would rather have the numbers stay where they are. But if they want to take them off, they’ll take them off.

“But if that happens, all of a sudden your 240 [cases] is obviously going to be a much higher number, and probably the 11 [deaths] will be a higher number too.” 

Cooler heads prevailed, and over the president’s objections, the Grand Princess [cruise ship] was allowed to dock at the Port of Oakland.

Travel Ban. Trump did one thing right. On Jan. 31, he banned most foreigners who had recently visited China from entering the United States. That bough us time and helped stop the spread of the virus.

But this was a relatively modest measure that, in itself, is woefully inadequate unless combined with rapid and comprehensive testing, which was never forthcoming.

Yet, Trump talks of his China travel ban as if it were a game changer, which it most definitely was not.

Trump’s subsequent actions have been uninspiring and largely beside the point.

Last week, he imposed more travel restrictions on Europe. But as his own former homeland security adviser, Tom Bossert, has explained, additional travel restrictions now aren’t of much help since the virus is already widespread.

“We have nearly as much disease here in the U.S. as the countries in Europe,” Bossert tweeted. “We must focus on layered community mitigation measures. Now.”

Testing. For this same reason, even additional testing is, at this late point, of limited use. The time to test was six to weight weeks ago, when Trump was still in denial and insisting that everything was manageable and well contained.

Testing, after all, is most important early on before a virus has spread throughout a country or region. When relatively few people are infected, it is more feasible to limit or contain contact spread of the virus from person to person.

But we are long past that point with the coronavirus, which epidemiologists say is now widespread, albeit underreported, in the United States.

That doesn’t mean we should give up on testing; we shouldn’t and we aren’t. But at this point, extreme social distancing is our best and most effective preventative measure. Testing will have limited public health utility or benefit.

Meanwhile, in the absence of presidential leadership, leaders in state and local government, as well as the private sector, have stepped forward to fill the leadership void left by Trump. Indeed, as the New York Times Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman report

Within the United States, as the coronavirus spreads from one community to another, he [Trump] has been more follower than leader.

While he presents himself as the nation’s commanding figure, Mr. Trump has essentially become a bystander as school superintendents, sports commissioners, college presidents, governors and business owners across the country take it upon themselves to shut down much of American life without clear guidance from the president…

Beyond travel limits and wash-your-hands reminders, Mr. Trump has left it to others to set the course in combating the pandemic and has indicated he was in no rush to take further action.

That was Thursday, March 12. On Friday, March 13, in an effort to regain the initiative and control the political and media narrative, Trump gave another, better-received address with business executives at the White House. But it was too little too late I’m afraid.

The die has been cast. Trump’s failures of leadership are too many too count, too grave, and too consequential.

Buck Passing. Harry Truman famously said that, as president, “the buck stops here,” with him. The president is responsible for what happens on his watch.

Truman was right then, and what he said then still applies today: The buck stops with the president.

Unfortunately and sadly, as president, Trump is more interested in buck passing than in assuming the responsibilities of the office to which he was elected.

We can only hope and pray that tens of thousands of American do not pay the ultimate price for Trump’s inability and unwillingness to lead, and his failure to act with dispatch when it mattered most.

Feature photo credit: Bastiaann Slabbers /Nurphoto /Getty via The Atlantic.

What Will Trump Do In Afghanistan?

Only 11 days have passed since the United States signed a so-called peace deal with the Taliban that laid out a 14-month timetable for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan; but already we know how events there will unfold and what the crucial decision points will be in the months ahead.

We know this because we’ve been in Afghanistan for nearly 19 years and we know the Taliban. We know that they remain committed to overthrowing the legitimately elected government of Afghanistan, conquering the country, and establishing a so-called Islamic Emirate.

What we don’t know for sure is how President Trump will respond when the Taliban renege on the deal, or exploit the deal’s many ambiguities, to realize their longstanding political objective. The early signs, unfortunately, are worrisome.

Last Friday (Mar. 6), for instance, Trump seemed nonplussed when asked whether he is worried that the Taliban might overrun the country after the U.S. leaves. “Well, you know, eventually, countries have to take care of themselves,” he said.

We can’t be there for… another 20 years. We’ve been there for 20 years and we’ve been protecting the country [Afghanistan]. But eventually, they’re going to have to protect themselves…

You can only hold somebody’s hand for so long. We have to get back to running our country, too.

History Lesson. Sigh. Of course, the United States has troops in Afghanistan not to protect Afghanistan, but to protect the United States. The Taliban gave sanctuary to the terrorists who used Afghanistan to plan and execute the bombing of the Pentagon and World Trade Center towers.

As a result, the United States invaded Afghanistan and deposed the Taliban. And we have been working with the legitimately elected government of Afghanistan ever since to ensure that a 9/11 bombing or similar terrorist attack never happens again. This is not charity; it is national security. 

It’s frightening and sadly disconcerting that Trump seems not to understand this despite having been president for the past three-plus years.

On the other hand, as we’ve noted here at ResCon1, there are times where Trump does seem to recognize the strategic importance of Afghanistan and the history there. So maybe he’s not as stupid and clueless as he often sounds.

In any case, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, Marine Gen. Frank McKenzie, told the House Armed Services Committee yesterday that the Taliban are continuing to carry out military attacks in violation of its agreement with the United States.

McKenzie, reports the Associated Press, told the committee

he has no confidence that the [Taliban] will honor its commitments, but said his optimism or pessimism about the future doesn’t matter because any decision will be based on facts and what happens on the ground.

Decision Point. In other words, in the coming months, and especially next fall, Gen. McKenzie will tell Trump that the Taliban are not negotiating in good faith and have stepped up their attacks on the Afghan government in violation of the agreement.

Gen. McKenzie will tell Trump that the Afghan government needs U.S. support or it will will be overrun by the Taliban. What will Trump do?

Right now, it clearly sounds as if Trump will say: “I understand General, but we’ve been there too long. We must get out regardless [of the consequences].”

That’s obviously what Trump wants to do. But would he really risk allowing Afghanistan to become another terrorist training camp and base of operations? Would he really risk another 9/11-style terrorist attack?

We’ll soon find out.

Feature photo credit: Google Maps.

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

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.

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

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

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.