Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates used a phrase to
serve as the theme for this week's column. He talked about was the lack of “broader
strategies” in the Middle East. He went on to say that there seems to be a
disintegration of state-type systems in that region, which is also spreading
into the north of Africa, i.e. Libya.
In all the topics discussed on today's program the notion of
"broader strategies" permeated throughout. Staying with the topic of
the Middle East for a moment, it is reported that ISIS has executed the second
Japanese hostage. Sadly, if an individual appears in an ISIS video, clothed in
an orange jumpsuit, that person's fate has already been sealed. Government
officials understand this harsh reality, however people being ever-hopeful believe
that there is always something that can be done to rescue that individual when
in truth it's quite the opposite.
Former Secretary Gates illustrated another reality, which is
the United States' strategy as it stands is not broad enough to defeat ISIS –
this is the context of discussing that words like ‘defeat’ and ‘destroy’ are
not realistic as goals in fighting these terrorist organizations. All of the
things that Mr. Gates pointed out – that there would have to be some boots on
the ground to roll ISIS back; that there isn't a sense of vision for the future
as to how the region will look; and that tribalism is taking over in the Middle
East creating easy de facto sanctuaries for jihadists are accurate, but Mr.
Gates has the luxury of not having political contentions in making these
assessments.
In terms of ISIS, we don't fully agree with Mr. Gates that
the president doesn't have a broader strategy to combat them because the president's
broader strategy hinges getting some kind of resolution from Congress, which
would give him the option to employ some of the strategies that Mr. Gates had
outlined. You be the judge
as to whether you think the president consulting Congress on this is a good
idea or not.
In combating, containing and disabling these terrorist
organizations there isn't an effective
broader U.S. strategy because everyone is skittish about putting on paper the
option of boots on the ground, which would perceived as ‘going back in’ to
Iraq. However, to achieve the U.S.’s stated goals, that option has to be put on
the table, and no one wants to do it whether a number is outlined or not. No
one, especially in the Obama Administration is signing on to that.
Unfortunately Mr. Gates is correct and some number of U.S. personnel, in a
significant role, is required to be on the ground if the United States wants to
overwhelm ISIS.
This brings us to Congressman Paul Ryan's statement during
his interview, in which he said, “it is wholly appropriate” for the Congress,
and equal branch of government, to invite the head of state of another country
without informing the president first.
We liked most of what Mr. Ryan had to say in today's
interview (tax reform and finding common ground), however, it is wholly
inappropriate for House Speaker John Boehner to invite the Israeli prime
minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to address a joint session of Congress with out
consulting the president first.
This column has no problem with ninety-five percent of U.S.-Israeli
policy, relations, and support. However,
we have a serious problem with Prime Minister Netanyahu coming to the United
States and sticking his thumb in the eye of our president, playing political
games, by accepting Mr. Boehner’s invitation. It’s so self-serving and so self-interested
that we find it pretty disgusting, frankly. Constitutionally, fine, the Speaker
of the U.S. House of Representatives can invite a leader of another country to
come and speak, but it's a stupid and shortsighted move to accept that
invitation. In this sense, there is no
sense of a broader strategy on the part of the Israeli Prime Minister or
the Republicans who control the Congress.
This lack of a broader strategy theme would also make you
think of Vladimir Putin in Russia and how it seems like he does not have one,
as discussed today as well. However he does have a broader strategy and its
simply one that Americans don't understand.
He's broader strategy is to isolate and consolidate power at
home, by what ever means are available to him. For Mr. Putin it’s all a matter
of control and restoration. Mr.
Putin wants the Ukraine back in the sphere of a greater Russia - it's that
simple - and that he'll use propaganda to win public support an obvious notion.
Mr. Gates said that Mr. Putin's approval rating was 80%, to which Mr. Todd questioned
the reliability of that poll considering it comes from state-controlled media. His
broader strategy is to back in time and restore/create an alternately named new
Soviet-type entity.
Another quick note on the interview between Mr. Gates and
Chuck Todd is that Mr. Todd asked the former secretary, "If you could ask
a presidential candidate one question what would it be?" Mr. Gates' reply focused
on the people that the candidate would put around him or herself. He went on to
say that "great presidents have a first-class temperament." Mr. Todd will
certainly be bringing that up Mr. Gates’ answer during future debates and
interviews with presidential hopefuls – a little cheap foreshadowing.
Also in terms of broader strategies, we liked Mr. Ryan's
tone and answers in terms of trying to find common ground with the president on
tax reform. One of the things discussed on the subject was the "trust fund
loophole," in which the president would like to eliminate. Broadly
explained, this loophole would be when you inherit assets, you would have to
pay a tax that you now do not. Mr. Ryan’ argument was a very effective one that
we happen to agree with. This type of tax would make it more difficult or prohibitive
to pass along a family business so that it can continue generationally. When
the argument is framed like that, it makes a lot of sense not to "close
that loophole," doesn’t it? A
small business these days is a million-dollar enterprise – that's considered
small scale while not being a small amount of money to most Americans.
Like Congressman Ryan, we don't know where the points of
common ground are exactly between the president, Democrats and the Republicans.
However, also like Mr. Ryan, we do remain hopeful that common ground can be
achieved somewhere. But will it get done?
Here we turn to CNBC's Jim Cramer who when asked if tax form
will really happen, his answer was "no way." The reason that he was
so definitive on tax reform not happening is easy to understand. Any compromise
on tax reform inevitably is going to hit big corporations so the heads of those
corporations have little incentive to support tax reform on any level. When you
take the reformation of an individual's taxes off the table then you are only left
with corporate and the top one-percents’ taxes to play with, and are the most
difficult to alter, politically.
Up until this point, this column has been reluctant to
comment on presidential politics, but we will weigh in on the subject today because
of the news that Mitt Romney has decided not to run for the office for a third
time. This news prompted today's panel to conclude that the Republican field is
now pretty much set. We find that so interesting because the Democratic field is
so up in the air. Hillary Clinton has not declared her candidacy and no one is
sure who else is interested in running from the Democratic side. So as it
stands right now, one party has a set field and the other has no field.
With Mitt Romney out of the running now, Jeb Bush becomes
the establishment candidate for the Republican nomination – that’s who is
getting most of Mr. Romney’s former key donors. Everyone on the panel seems to
like Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin – Iowa polls like him too. In
Wisconsin, as Congressman Ryan said, Mr. Walker is so popular that he was
elected three times in four years, playing off of the fact that he won his
first election, won a recall vote, then won reelection. This joke can carry him
a long way, possibly to the nomination. Note what Jim Cramer said – Scott
Walker is good for stock prices. Kathleen Parker, the syndicated columnist,
said that Scott Walker's attractiveness stems from him being able to play in
both pools - the very conservative base and the establishment, more corporate,
donor class of the Republican Party. When you take all that into consideration,
you would have to say that Gov. Walker is a form of formidable candidate.
One note here, despite the Iowa polls showing Mr. Walker at
the top and given our stated conclusion, this column has decided that Iowa in
terms of being a bell weather or king maker does not represent the electorate
and is hence a poor one. This is
especially true with the Republican base in that state. When your leader is Representative
Steve King, you should simply not be taken seriously. The Iowa political tradition should be rethought.
(Back to it.) By contrast with Governor Walker, Mr. Bush has
had his problems with the Republican base - common core and immigration as Kathleen Parker
mentioned. There is also New
Jersey Gov. Chris Christie who definitely has his problems with temperament –
the kind Mr. Gates described earlier. And ultimately that's his downfall. There’s
former governor Mike Huckabee, the cultural warrior, who hasn't figured out
that for the most part, in this country, the culture war has been fought and
Mr. Huckabee's side has lost. Young Republicans are more libertarian in a truer
sense than Mr. Huckabee ever will be. Naturally then, this leads you to think
about the Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul. The problem with Sen. Paul as a
president is that at one moment he has good ideas then comes back with a crazy
idea. In both cases, he’s unable
to court any friends. To succeed, a president needs more alliances than what Senator
Paul would be able to widely cultivate.
It's kind of what happened to President Obama in a way. Over
the course of his presidency, his alliances have dwindled – ebbed and flowed –
but ultimately have been reduced. Now he finds himself having to work doubly
hard to build up those broad alliances again in the last two years of his term
to accomplish anything. We’ll see
how he does.
Panel: Mark Halperin, Bloomberg News; Kathleen Parker, The
Washington Post; Savannah Guthrie, NBC Today Show; Jim Cramer, CNBC
No comments:
Post a Comment