Still, the guy shouldn't even have GOTTEN the job in the first place, the loss of security clearance alone would be a red flag.
This is the main reason I'm hammering on Trump's lack of recruitment and the low quality of those he has hired. This is something that was warned about before he was elected and quickly became the focus among those who have worked in government before; people simply don't believe they can work for him. These departments are complicated organs that carry out (contrary to some beliefs) important roles in the world. Having functional organs of governance in the USA is important for most of us around the world. Having these organs fail due to a lack of staff or mismanagement by the incompetent, inexperienced staff that are put in place is going to have serious consequences.
I mean, the fact that the usual processes for handling and disseminating intelligence in the US executive branch - the NSC - is effectively dead is disturbing. The White House seems to be running on an unofficial advisory body made up of complete outsiders who believe in ideology over fact. You have intelligence and defence agencies looking at how to establish their own unofficial NSC processes to effectively replicate what is being lost. That the White House seems to believe that the only threat any intelligence agency should ever acknowledge is Islam/ISIS should scare the shit out of everyone.
Then you have the damage done to the State Department, grossly understaffed, ignored by the White House and trying to shore up a narrative undercut every time Trump himself speaks. The US no longer has a foreign policy. It has
absurdity and contradictions.
Most politicians break promises and water down positions once they take office. This is because, generally, you have to adjust broad promises to match reality. There are legal and practical considerations that often only become clear when you have the advantage of the full advice of the working government. Examining policies to see what the outcomes may be - and how to reach towards a desired goal without being counterproductive or grossly harmful - is something you need functioning, experienced departments to manage. Trump has no interest in establishing such a government and seems to be actively removing the processes that do such fact checking. He is implementing policies that have the opposite of their stated effect - such as a travel ban that has no positive security benefits and while offering a recruiting tool for extremists, or removing an environmental regulation that would have created as many jobs as it removed to save the older, more temporary roles - without vetting them by the bodies which would tell him such things before he did them. And unless something drastic changes I see that continuing and causing great harm in the US and on the world stage.
I know a lot of people like the idea of burning down the US government, but this isn't going to reduce the potential harm it can cause, just ensure it inflicts that harm blindly and randomly. Much of what will be lost are checks and balances, as well as advice and experience on how to effectively and positively take actions without counter-productive results. Trump can still wield the power of his office, but he will be using it based on TV news spots. That is scary.
We have
Russia saying that separatists in southeast Ukraine will have passports recognised, effectively pretending the region is now independent. Does anyone believe the US government has the bandwidth, inclination or expertise to bring a nuanced response to this? Would Russia have any reason to respect any attempt to get them to back down and abide by the law? There are rumours that Bannon and his SIG are looking at some sort of
grand bargain with Russia, but as noted in that Tweet stream it doesn't make much sense unless they are coming from a position of weakness for no apparent reason. Russia can't really give the US much that it wants or needs right now. If they wanted to work with Russia against ISIS that would be a great favour to Russia - offering legitimacy to their actions in Syria and the Assad regime - not something that would require further concessions. We are the ones who have sanctions against Russia and removing them would, again, be the US doing something for Russia. Literally the only thing would be if Russia agrees to abandon Iran. Which is a disturbing idea, that Bannon sees sacrificing Ukrane and weakening NATO as worthwhile to isolate Iran.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4251016 times)