Saturday, December 3, 2016


To demonstrate the agility and  flexibility required by our next Secretary of State, let's take a look at at our current international situation after the General Election:

For the past two decades our military has been designed to be a strike force without real capacity to take and hold ground.  It is designed to hold off an aggressor for a time so that our allies can mobilize the needed land forces.  The new President Elect has, to a limited extent, even before taking office, destabilized our alliances. Not only has he shaken our allies, in Europe, by becoming close to Vladimir Putin, but now by nominating an Iran hawk to head the Department of Defense, rattled both Russia and Iran, on one hand but  Arabia and Israel on the other.  Syria is a client state of Russia.  at the same time, its Government is being propped up by the Shiite Government of Iran.  If hostilities breakout between Iran and the U.S. Russia will probably choose to back Iran.  An open alliance between Russia and Iran is sure to spook both Israel and Saudi Arabia.  Meanwhile, our amateur President-elect has touched a raw nerve, with China, by either taking a call or calling a potential client for a hotel in Taiwan, and may initiate aggressive actions against Taiwan which may require sending forces to Southeast Asia at the same time we are engaged in Syria fighting a Sunni ISIS.

Trump could pour additional fuel on a potential fire by rattling atomic sabers forgetting that both China and Russia  have sufficient weapons to warn us  of Mutually Assured Destruction in the event of nuclear war.  Our relationship with the Kurds who are supplying us with trained ground troops against ISIS is hurting our relations with Turkey whose air bases are essential, for us, in the Mid-East.  Into this complicated mess, we do not need bull-in-the China shop types like John Bolton or Mad Dog Mattis, Rudy Giuliani or our new President-elect. The only two Republicans I can think of who understand the game ar Kissinger, Colin Powell, and possibly Condoleeza Rice but there may be some experienced State Department hands who could fit the bill, as well, but a bad choice could be most dangerous.

During WW II when faced with a two front war, the U.S. made sure it had peaceful relations with Mexico and the rest of Latin America. At the moment, we may have fence mending, not fence building with those Mexican "rapists".  If Putin wishes, he can proceed to take over the Baltic States at a time when NATO has been shaken by prospects of a Trump-Putin Axis.  Putin can, likewise offer a pact with China, who now are really offended by Trump, and scare the pants off Japan and the rest of Southeast Asia who rely on the U.S umbrella for protection from China.

The guy hasn't even taken the Oath of Office and he has given us Big League headaches.



  1. Yes --- China has become so skilled that although they lodged a protest, they said they didn't think it would affect relations with the US, in other words, "we understand that this guy doesn't know anything!"

    1. While I'm sure you are correct about the Chinese, I think we should understand what could happen. If Trump continues to breach the "one China" accommodation, there is something the Chinese say about "saving face" and my scenario is plausible if unlikely. We do live in a world where the plausible becomes all too likely, rather suddenly .

  2. The fact that China has since flown bombers carrying nuclear weaponry over the island is explicit evidence to that effect. Take note, or take a body count ... I believe the message is clear.

  3. I should also mention that actually being the cause of a civil war within another country makes it much harder to justify a counterstrike against the greater side in the conflict ... especially since our current policy is to recognize only the greater side as a sovereign entity, and not both. Trump really put his foot in it this time.