T. Belman. I certainly hope so. Now that Trump has Rocket Man on the ropes due to Trump’s bellicosity and unpredictablity, what better choice would there be than upping the ante with Bolton rather than softening the message with a peace maker.
War certainly isn’t the answer to all problems but neither is negotiating a deal, any deal as Obama was wont to do.
WAR was the only answer to Hitler’s agression. It should have been resorted to earlier. Similarly WAR is the best answer to Iranian aggression. The sooner the better. Who better than Bolton to lead the charge.
Reports that John Bolton met with President Trump in the White House on Tuesday to discuss the possibility of him succeeding H.R. McMaster as national security adviser should send a chill down the spines of every American — and indeed of every person on the planet.
In a country with a less bellicose foreign policy establishment, Bolton would be considered a warmongering lunatic. But America’s foreign policy establishment inclines toward reflexive militarism (on the grounds that American bombs, troops, and special operations forces are invariably a force for good in the world), and so Bolton comes off as merely somewhat more unhinged than his peers. But that shouldn’t blind us to the enormous danger confronting us all if he were to ascend to such a powerful position in the Trump administration.
Bolton thinks that war — by which I mean everything from the launching of missiles to the deployment of ground forces to foreign theaters of battle — is the solution to every problem the United States confronts in the world. That is not an exaggeration. I challenge readers to find any statement Bolton has made against any American act of war at any time anywhere. And no, Bolton’s harsh words for the Obama administration’s plans for a limited air strike against Syria in retaliation for Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons in the country’s civil war doesn’t count, since the criticism amounted to the argument that the bombing would be too limited in scope.
The pattern goes all the way back to the Vietnam War, which Bolton supported as a young man (while personally avoiding deployment to Southeast Asia by joining the Maryland National Guard). Like most Republicans, he supported Ronald Reagan’s confrontational stance against the Soviet Union and George H.W. Bush’s Persian Gulf War to turn back Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. During the Clinton administration, he advocated military interventions in the Balkans and the use of force to topple Saddam Hussein. He strongly advocated for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and as recently as 2015 defended the latter as the “correct” decision, despite our failure to find the weapons of mass destruction that were Bolton’s primary reason for supporting the war in the first place.
Along the way, he also tried to assimilate Cuba into the “axis of evil” by accusing the country (on the basis of intelligence that was later debunked) of developing biological weapons and distributing them to Libya and Syria. He later advocated the targeted assassination of Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi and then backed the Obama administration’s military intervention there (which of course didn’t stop him from blasting the Libyan action after it had devolved into Iraq-like chaos as “too little, too late”). He thinks the U.S. should have invaded Syria and overthrown Assad shortly after the Iraq invasion of 2003, just as he’s made clear over and over again that he thinks it would be a splendid idea for the U.S to bomb Iran — and perhaps even a good thing for Israel to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against the country.
And then there’s North Korea, one of the biggest problems confronting the Trump administration and the world. It will surprise no one that Bolton favors a massive preemptive strike against the country — or that he waves away concerns about the potential for massive casualties and the possible negative consequences for America’s strategic interests throughout the region. We would simply ask for China’s help in bringing about a “controlled collapse of the North Korean regime.” Sure the costs could be enormous. But for Bolton, the costs of avoiding war would clearly be greater.
This is what defines Bolton’s foreign policy thinking: the conviction that war is always the best option.
Having a man who so consistently — one might almost say instinctually — favors military action serving as the national security adviser to the president would be dangerous in any White House. But in the Trump administration it could be catastrophic.
Trump is utterly ignorant of the world, prone to making impulsive decisions, and tends to defer to the most forceful voice in the room, especially when it conveys information with confident bluster. That would give Bolton enormous power to shape policy — which means the power to get the United States to launch big new wars as well as expand the numerous ones we’re already waging across wide swaths of the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia.
One of those wars (in Iraq) was launched by another president lacking foreign policy experience who deferred to the hawks in the room (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld), who combined paranoia about threats with absurdly optimistic prognostications about the efficacy of using American bombs to shape the future course of the region. It ended up destabilizing much of the Middle East.
Eight years later another inexperienced president deferred to his hawkish advisers (Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Samantha Powers) in launching another war (in Libya) on the basis of an overly sanguine assessment of the likely consequences. It ended up destabilizing much of North Africa.
Both acts of destabilization have led to enormous refugee flows from those areas of the world to Europe, where they have helped to provoke a right-wing populist-nationalist reaction that is transforming politics in an anti-liberal direction across the European Union.
Are we really supposed to believe that the results of putting John Bolton in a senior advisory position from which he could persuade President Trump to launch wars against North Korea and Iran would have less disastrous consequences for the United States and the world? If the stakes weren’t so high, the suggestion might be considered a punchline.
The position of national security adviser isn’t confirmable by the Senate, so there may be nothing that Congress can do formally to stand in the way of Bolton’s appointment. But that doesn’t mean that Congress, or the public, should be silent. On the contrary, the president needs to hear in no uncertain terms from people he respects in his own party that Bolton is bad news.
The alternative could be the very worst news for the rest of us.
@ Edgar G.:
Hi, Edgar
I don’t blame President Trump, for hedging his bets with the Kurds. Though an ancient people, the Kurds are not a nation and have little prospect of becoming one in the near future. They resemble the Chinese when the Japanese invaded: a bunch of warlords, all seeking personal advantage.
The Turks are NATO allies. I don’t trust Erdogan any further than I can throw him (not very far, at my age); and neither Trump, the Russians, the Syrians, the Iranians, the Kurds — in short, none of the important actors in the region, are fooled by him. They use him, and he uses them. He has been a big destabilizer in the region, and promises to continue in this role.
I haven’t seen anything definite in the reliable press about McMaster leaving his post. He hasn’t even been attacked by Trump on Twitter, as Jeff Sessions was; and Sessions is still serving as Attorney General. The UN-reliable press has been rumoring that McMaster will go and Bolton may replace him. That is the press that was cock-sure Hillary Clinton would win, and that has been publishing little other than BS for some time. For all I know, the President just wanted to talk to to the experienced statesman, to get advice before the Korea summit.
A really impressive backdrop for the summit meeting, would to be to have the USS Missouri anchored off Seoul, — just for show, but backed up with aircraft carriers, an amphibious assault ship or two with a full complement of F-35Bs, etc. It would also be good, I think, if President Trump frequently looks at his wristwatch while talking — a wristwatch with flashing red buttons on it. Obviously, I have not read Trump’s book on how to make a deal.
We’ll just have to wait and see how things go.
@ Roberto Edery:
Not only that, but he has been travelling around the world for many years meeting all the heads of state and high govt. officials for business and other economic deals. He is fully aware of the situation, although it seems that a variety of conspirators in the White House keep him less well informed than he should be. I don’t understand this situation with the Kurds,and why he doesn’t support them with everything he can, especially against the Turks. Perhaps it’s the NATO connection that is restraining him, but he could still do something surreptitiously. Turkey should be kicked out of Nato and they should invite another adjacent country to take it’s place, if they need a spot in that vicinity. a couple of hundred miles this way ir that should not matter.
“Trump is utterly ignorant of the world”? That’s just a leftist talking point, like most of this “article”. Trump has proved to have more common sense and cunning than Obama, Bush and Clinton all together. This is just hysterical garbage.
Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton warned Sunday that President Obama should not take any actions before leaving office that could hurt Israel at the U.N.
http://thehill.com/policy/international/306908-bolton-obama-should-not-do-anything-to-harm-israel-at-un
Bolton is clear friend of Israel and hopefully Trump will pick him to replace McMaster as his National Security Adviser.
He is absolutely no friend of Israel not in the remotest.
He is a hard core Neocon.
His position on Saddam was to follow the logic of the Neocons. That war on Saddam even though Saddam was one weakened and two a great enemy of Iranian Jihad and Jihad in general.
His position on Gadhafi was exactly the same as Cameron. That is the position of the hated British elite on the world stage.
The British turned on Gadhafi but Blair definitely was opposed. He saw no point. It undid all the great work done by Blair and George W Bush. And it was great work. Gadhafi was a REAL ally.
Trump reflecting deep disappointment in his base took a position of opposing Bolton, perhaps not directly, but very definitely.
Look up if you can the Michael savage interview with Trump on the NIGHT OF THE ELECTION. trump makes clear the madness of Bolton.
I will be really amazed if he chooses him.
Trump is strong, will go to war but is not a war mongerer and there is a difference.
Bolton would be a superb addition to the Trump team. Hard core conservative with wide experience in foreign affairs.
Felix Quigley Said:
Bolton would be great. Knows his stuff. Speaks his mind clearly. Is a friend of Israel. He would be a counter to Mathis and Tillerson.
@ Felix Quigley:
Felix, you have to agree that although Bolton was in favour of those military actions..encouraged them as you say, he was not in charge, and had no say in how the wars were conducted nor in the miserable endings. They were not his fault. He was right in his concepts, but the chosen leaders were all wrong for their positions.
So why should he be blamed. He’s a hundred times better for the position -seeing the dangerous situation with Islam-, than McMaster who seems to see everything through a “dark glass” with a glass eye, as Mark Twain said in his famous attack on Fenimore Cooper’s writing, when it comes to their barbarism and complete lack of conscience and .keeping solemn agreements
Michael Savage will not agree with Ted or any of the present commenters on Israpundit. Bolton rarely says anything that is new. He is for one thing only, for war, and war can be terribly upsetting and very counter productive. In some things not all Savage I would call a wise man, a man with wisdom.
I can see how Trump who is very weak in many areas will go for that solution.
I would have thought that the dreadful consequences of the war on Saddam, and the war then on Gadhafi, so much encouraged by Bolton, would have ruled him out for ever.
These are positions that Trump in his most progressive phase defintitely opposed. If trump goes back on that and employs Bolton then that will mean that trump is deteriorating seriously.
But he has been brought on by Hannity and others “Mister Speaker Sir”, likewise Lou Dobbs.
I am not against war. I am not a pacifist. But the history of this man tells a different story.
The author is a Chamberlain-like weenie who has not quite grasped yet that you don’t deter mad and bloody dictators by threatening to slap them on the wrist. You threaten them with credible force and resolve to the point where they realize that they may well end up losing it all if they persist. Bolton has seen these characters up close when he was US Ambassador to the UN. He knows exactly what needs to be done to get the bad guys to pay attention and yield. If they don’t, they should know that with a tandem like Trump and Bolton, they better have their testament ready. I concur with Ted: I certainly hope the rumor is accurate. McMaster is like Obama, deluded in believing that conciliotary gestures from Muslim leaders anywhere will bring reciprocal moves when in fact they don’t know what the concept means. The Romans had it right: “Si vis pacem, para bellum”. If you want peace, prepare for war. Trump would be very well advised to replace McMaster with Bolton. Another great move.
I voted Republican for President for the first time when I voted to re-elect Bush in 2004 precisely because I liked Cheney and Rumsfeld as well as Wolfowitz, whom the author forgot to include in his hysterical indictment {beware of purported “analyses” that consist largely of furious name-calling}. I recall being rather pissed off when Bush responded to receiving a mandate through a landslide re-election only to jettison them and start making concessions to the Liberals he had gleefully and effectively thumbed his nose at for 4 years. Only then, did the war start to run into problems until McCain turned it around by suggesting the Surge (his one constructive contribution, otherwise he’s been a disaster from start to finish.)
@Ted Belman
Ha Ha Ha. When I saw the headline, I immediately planned to reply, “I certainly hope so” only to find that you had already done so. Good job.
P.S.
A little l’esprit d’escalier: A while back on another Jewish/Israeli news site, I responded to an article about N. Korea’s threats with the angy rejoiner: “Nuke N. Korea.” Somebody responded: “Wouldn’t help.” I wound up biting my tongue and not doing it, to my regret, but I had the urge to counter-respond: “Couldn’t hurt.” But, I was afraid I would be misunderstood. But then, “to be great is to be misunderstood.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson
First of all writer, you’re an egg-headed putz. Second, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Third, Bolton’s, positions were supported…AND carried out by hundreds of thousands who thought exactly like him, some even more extreme.
Fourth , he had served in government before, and his service has often been described as “distinguished”. Fifth. A huge load of comments, articles essays, written by learned theorists, professors, Generals, Senators, Congressmen, and others, including John Bolton, have poured out from around the world.
And it is Bolton’s comments that are noted for accuracy, clarity, common-sense, timeliness, and honest feeling. No sleek political double-talk at all. The only thing I don’t like about him is……that silly soup-strainer white, upper lip camouflage.
(The way, as i was growing up in a clean shaven era, I regarded those with moustaches and beards, as being self conscious and at the same time extrovert enough to want to draw attention to themselves. My goodness those pencil-thin moustaches were often actually aided by eyebrow pencils).