The following brief post is a letter to the editor. I sent it to my local paper, but to date they haven't published it.
September 11, 2001 was a very scary day. On that day, we learned that men armed with
primitive weapons can use our most advanced technology against us in terribly
destructive ways. We also learned
(again) how much easier it is to destroy something than to build it.
The election of Donald Trump as president of the United
States and his appointment of Stephen Bannon to the National Security council has
made it clear that we are also politically vulnerable. We have put our most sophisticated weapons
into the hands of a person who has only been vetted by an individual who lost the popular vote. What will actually
happen as a result of this appointment is, at this moment, unclear. But what could happen is frighteningly
apparent to some. Our foreign policy could
be directed in such a way that we would enter waters that could result in the
use of nuclear weapons in what would be seen as a defensive or pre-emptive
strike but would, in fact, be naked aggression on our part.
The irony, of course, is that Trump has railed against an
intelligence community that supported the position that there were weapons of
mass destruction at Saddam Hussein’s disposal.
Those of us who watched the Bush administration present evidence to the
UN of weapons of mass destruction knew that the evidence was flimsy. The fault for the actions that led from the
intelligence, such as it was, was not in the intelligence community, but in the
political community. We were ready for
war and we convinced ourselves that we were engaging in a pre-emptive strike
against a hostile enemy.
What if it were to become apparent to us, the People of the
United States of America, that it would be wrong under any conditions and at
any time, to use nuclear weapons? What
if, further, we were to take the position that being a military aggressor is
something that we have historically done only based on the perception that our
actions were actually and deeply self-protective, but that we were sometimes
wrong about this? Would it follow that
we would build a military that was truly capable of being only defensive? What would be the consequences of these two
actions?
Strategically, it would be stupid to unilaterally and
immediately announce a position that we would, under no conditions, use nuclear
weapons. But what if we were to announce
this as a goal and work vigilantly towards it?
What if we were to work vigilantly towards a goal of disarming ourselves
– and all other nations? What if we were
to use our Aircraft carriers as ambassadors of peace (as we do) using them (solely)
as mobile disaster relief centers? What
if we made it clear to all that the best way to assure our own safety was to
assure everyone’s safety?
OK, I know that almost everyone who reads this will dismiss
it as granola head garbage. The reluctant wife told
me that if we actually did this, six months later I, myself, would be railing
against it. There would be a LOT of
details to work out. My guess is that
our friends the Quakers and Pope Francis could help us think this through, but
we should also turn to tough minded
people like Dwight Eisenhower who did not trust the military-industrial
complex. We need to figure out how to
protect us, the people of world, from harming ourselves.
After writing this, I sent this as an email to the reluctant mother. She let me know of an organization, the Simons Foundation, that is working towards nuclear disarmament. Full disclosure: it was actually founded by a distant relative of mine. If you are concerned, as I am, you might want to check out the link to their site. I am also far from the first to wonder about Trump and his terroristic leanings. See this post of concern from a christian perspective.
Post Script: Having written about Trump as a terrorist, I am beginning to wonder about the advantages of having a terrorist as president during an era of terrorism. I think that one of the luxuries of being a terrorist is that you don't have a state to defend. You can attack without fear of reprisal - or with certainty of being welcomed into a post death hall of fame. I think that Trump's lack of attachment to his ideas - to people (Stephen Bannon is, at least as of this writing (4/18/17) on the outside looking in) - and I think to the United States in some very real sense (Trump's own business strategies - make a buck wherever a buck can be made - belie his pretending to be invested in the American worker or in a vision of making America Great), allow him to be nimble in ways that his predecessor certainly wasn't.
There was an article in the Sunday New York Times where the authors of House of Cards, Veep, Madam Secretary, and Scandal to discuss writing "reality" politics show in the age of Trump. This is challenging. Many years ago, I quickly tired of watching the show "Thirty Something". As I told my friends, "Why watch what I am living?" The authors have all, each in their own way, made politics absurd. So it becomes challenging when the real politics are more absurd than what they can cook up. Their conclusion? The most improbable and therefore best plot line would be for Trump to become a great president. (Will Frank Underwood become a popular president who is actually good for the country? You heard it here first....)
Trump the disrupter, by being a terrorist at the helm of the most powerful first world country in the would could, improbably, rewrite what it means to be a diplomat. Of course he will be doing this without a diplomatic corps - without a team - he is a one man band who does not want to be constrained by conducting the other players. I don't think the model is sustainable, but it might wake the world up to, among other things, just how crazy it is that we have nuclear weapons lying around ready to be used by the likes of Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump.
Post Post Script: I wrote the above before Kim Jong-un and Trump faced off. The opportunity there is that Trump, unlike most past President's, does not seem greatly attached to the welfare of people in general, but rather to this in his immediate family - and he pledges loyalty to those he calls his base - though his actions don't seem to have that base's interest in mind. In any case, I don't think that Trump feels much connection with the people, for instance, of South Korea or Japan. This is both an asset and a liability in negotiating with another terrorist - a dictator. Trump (as I have constructed him in this paragraph), like the other dictator, is not hamstrung by concern about damage that might be wreaked by, for instance, a nuclear face off. He might even be less hamstrung by it, for a change - so the possibility of blackmail diminishes. Of course, the danger is that the other negotiator might feel that his power is being unacknowledged and might do more than simply fire missiles - he might cause real damage to show his intent. This way true madness lies....
Post Post Post Script (8/15/2019): I think I keep returning to this post and adding to it as a way to prevent my blog from being clogged by thoughts about Donald - the way everything else seems to b these days. I think the seminal idea for it is a good one, though, and I would like to return to it and state it more clearly. Donald Trump was never a politician. In fact he despised them. By being elected, he inherited a political machine - a party - with all the power that goes with that, but without a sense of responsibility - and with disdain for the idea of government and governing. He has used the power of the office and the power of de facto party chief to cow the party into doing his bidding - because congressman are more concerned with keeping their jobs than with doing the jobs they were hired to do. Now to a certain extent this is defensible. If they don't toe the line, Trump will support someone who will either a) serve as a complete henchman in undermining the system or b) not get elected in the general election after winning the primary, undermining the power of the party. So one could provide a rationale that waiting him out - and being there to resurrect the party when he falls apart, is in everyone's best interest. But the central issue is that we have someone in the white house whose avowed mission is to destroy the process of governing. This is an inside job revolution that we are watching unfold before our very eyes and we appear to be powerless to stop it. It, like 9/11, is, when viewed with enough emotional distance (very hard to find in the era of Trump), brilliant. We have had a bloodless coup and the head of our country is a potentate who has seized power without firing a shot.
Post Script: Having written about Trump as a terrorist, I am beginning to wonder about the advantages of having a terrorist as president during an era of terrorism. I think that one of the luxuries of being a terrorist is that you don't have a state to defend. You can attack without fear of reprisal - or with certainty of being welcomed into a post death hall of fame. I think that Trump's lack of attachment to his ideas - to people (Stephen Bannon is, at least as of this writing (4/18/17) on the outside looking in) - and I think to the United States in some very real sense (Trump's own business strategies - make a buck wherever a buck can be made - belie his pretending to be invested in the American worker or in a vision of making America Great), allow him to be nimble in ways that his predecessor certainly wasn't.
There was an article in the Sunday New York Times where the authors of House of Cards, Veep, Madam Secretary, and Scandal to discuss writing "reality" politics show in the age of Trump. This is challenging. Many years ago, I quickly tired of watching the show "Thirty Something". As I told my friends, "Why watch what I am living?" The authors have all, each in their own way, made politics absurd. So it becomes challenging when the real politics are more absurd than what they can cook up. Their conclusion? The most improbable and therefore best plot line would be for Trump to become a great president. (Will Frank Underwood become a popular president who is actually good for the country? You heard it here first....)
Trump the disrupter, by being a terrorist at the helm of the most powerful first world country in the would could, improbably, rewrite what it means to be a diplomat. Of course he will be doing this without a diplomatic corps - without a team - he is a one man band who does not want to be constrained by conducting the other players. I don't think the model is sustainable, but it might wake the world up to, among other things, just how crazy it is that we have nuclear weapons lying around ready to be used by the likes of Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump.
Post Post Script: I wrote the above before Kim Jong-un and Trump faced off. The opportunity there is that Trump, unlike most past President's, does not seem greatly attached to the welfare of people in general, but rather to this in his immediate family - and he pledges loyalty to those he calls his base - though his actions don't seem to have that base's interest in mind. In any case, I don't think that Trump feels much connection with the people, for instance, of South Korea or Japan. This is both an asset and a liability in negotiating with another terrorist - a dictator. Trump (as I have constructed him in this paragraph), like the other dictator, is not hamstrung by concern about damage that might be wreaked by, for instance, a nuclear face off. He might even be less hamstrung by it, for a change - so the possibility of blackmail diminishes. Of course, the danger is that the other negotiator might feel that his power is being unacknowledged and might do more than simply fire missiles - he might cause real damage to show his intent. This way true madness lies....
Post Post Post Script (8/15/2019): I think I keep returning to this post and adding to it as a way to prevent my blog from being clogged by thoughts about Donald - the way everything else seems to b these days. I think the seminal idea for it is a good one, though, and I would like to return to it and state it more clearly. Donald Trump was never a politician. In fact he despised them. By being elected, he inherited a political machine - a party - with all the power that goes with that, but without a sense of responsibility - and with disdain for the idea of government and governing. He has used the power of the office and the power of de facto party chief to cow the party into doing his bidding - because congressman are more concerned with keeping their jobs than with doing the jobs they were hired to do. Now to a certain extent this is defensible. If they don't toe the line, Trump will support someone who will either a) serve as a complete henchman in undermining the system or b) not get elected in the general election after winning the primary, undermining the power of the party. So one could provide a rationale that waiting him out - and being there to resurrect the party when he falls apart, is in everyone's best interest. But the central issue is that we have someone in the white house whose avowed mission is to destroy the process of governing. This is an inside job revolution that we are watching unfold before our very eyes and we appear to be powerless to stop it. It, like 9/11, is, when viewed with enough emotional distance (very hard to find in the era of Trump), brilliant. We have had a bloodless coup and the head of our country is a potentate who has seized power without firing a shot.
To subscribe to posts (which occur 2-3 times per month), if you are on a computer, hit the X button on the upper right of this screen and, on the subsequent screen, hover your cursor over the black line in the upper right area and choose the pop out box that says subscribe and then enter the information. I'm sorry but I don't currently know how you can subscribe from a mobile device - hopefully you have a computer as well...
No comments:
Post a Comment