Category: Weekly Reading List (Page 1 of 4)

Editor on Trump’s threats against Iran

The greatest strategic mistake by the United States in the opening decades of the 21st century has been to get stuck in unwinnable wars in the Middle East, a region with declining strategic importance relative to Asia.

At the time when a predecessor, George W. Bush, invaded Iraq, Donald Trump supported the war. Later, during the 2016 presidential campaign he pretended – loudly and without shame – that he had opposed the war. What would he do if he had a similar decision in front of him as president? We may well get to know sometime soon.

Trump unleashed his vitriol against Iran on July 22, threatening war in an all-caps screed on Twitter.

“To Iranian President Rouhani,” he said. “NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!”

Trump practices “honor politics.” Please take note that the cause of the Trump’s outburst wasn’t anything Iran had actually done vis-à-vis America, but rather words used by his Iranian counterpart Trump took as a “threat.”

Rouhani had issued a boilerplate statement in response to Trump’s previous provocations, declaring: “Peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars.” Sniping back and forth is nothing unusual in U.S.-Iranian relations and certainly nothing for the American leader to get angry about. However, Trump seems to have chosen to believe Rouhani’s words were something the U.S. should “not stand for.”

Were Trump’s empty rhetoric the only thing on display, that would be worrisome enough for what it says about the mindset of the commander-in-chief of the largest military in the world. What is more concerning, however, is that Trump has been stoking the flames against Iran since he was elected, and his provocations have intensified of late.

On May 9, he made good on his pledge to withdraw from the nuclear deal with Iran. Now, he is warning other countries not to import Iranian oil, or else he will impose sanctions against them. Sanctioning a country that continues to comply with the nuclear deal – respected by all signatories except the United States – is an inherently provocative act.

Iran is already facing economic problems and unrest. Now, European companies, including France’s largest oil producer, Total, are reluctantly pulling out of Iran in order to avoid problems. Is it any wonder that Trump’s escalatory actions began shortly after neoconservative hardliner John Bolton became National Security Adviser in April?

Read full article: Column: Trump threatening war with Iran

Latinx is bullshxt

Just want to call attention to this op-ed by Daniel Hernandez in the L.A. Times from December 17: Op-ed: The case against ‘Latinx’.

In particular:

Nor is “Latinx” an organic neologism. It did not emerge from L.A.’s bilingual FM stations. The term is used mostly by an educated minority, largely in the U.S. And although there is little to no research yet on its specific origins, “Latinx” is definitely not used by working-class immigrant adults, who probably have no idea that some of us brown folks are debating this at all.

2 new articles for Areo and Acculturated

Your editor Mitchell Blatt is back with big pieces in Accultrated and Areo Magazine.

First, commenting in Acculturated on the lack of appeal for a movie about failed candidate for Texas governor and two-time filibusterer Wendy Davis:

In an interview with Refinery 29, Davis said, “I honestly never believed something like this would happen” (before stating in the next sentence how many people were telling her after the filibuster that a film should be made about her). Indeed, she might be right. The movie idea is still in the early stages of development and might very well end up suffering the same fate as her TV series.

Full article: Why Would Sandra Bullock Want to Make a Movie About Wendy Davis?

Next, in Areo Magazine I point to the problem of clickbait reporting–when journalists and/or editors distort facts in their headlines and leads such that it fundamentally changes the meaning of the story.

If you were reading Salon, ThinkProgress, or Glenn Greenwald this October 3rd, you might think the United States under Trump’s leadership began the process of criminalizing homosexuality and executing gays…

Full article: Why Clickbait Reporting is the Real Problem, Not Liberal Bias

Dual toxicity of intersectionality and Islamism

Apologies for I have been busy, with some big publications which are out.

The first one, is a result of a thorough case study, where I highlight how the institutions of media, academia and even armed forces are under the attack from the forces of intersectionality. The operational tactics are Infiltration, Subversion and Coercion.

Read it here. “Intersectionality and Popper’s Paradox“. In Quilette.

The second essay deals the flawed priorities of Western Conservatives, as they neglect the two most sacred duties of any conservative government, security of the realm and law and order in the streets.

Read it here. “Jihadist Insurgencies and Conservative Priorities“. In American Greatness.

The third essay is in the same publication, highlighting the changing character of EU and the imperial dilemma it faces.

Read, “Europe’s Imperial Dilemma“.

Finally, in my first essay for Claremont Review of Books, I talk about something which I have been writing about for a while, on how Islamism is now morphing to a simmering insurgency.

Read here. “The Character of Insurgency“. Claremont Institute, CRB.

That’s enough to keep you occupied for a while!

Until next time.

 

 

 

Exclusive: Editor’s commentary published at Central European Journal of International and Security Studies

Bombs + Dollars Editor-in-Chief Mitchell Blatt’s commentary on his analysis of public opinion toward ISIS was published today at the website of the Central European Journal of International and Security Studies (CEJISS).

It begins:

Are public fears about ISIS rational? A detailed global survey released by the Pew Research Center in August found that across 38 countries, ISIS is the issue the world’s people are most concerned about, besting climate change, in a plurality of countries surveyed. … I focused on analyzing whether, within the confines of human psychology, the relative risk assessments of various countries are in line with the threat posed to those countries by ISIS.

Read his commentary to see the findings and explanations: Is Fear of ISIS Rational? – CEJISS

The political meaning of Korean makgeolli

An excerpt of my latest travel article from my travel blog China Travel Writer:

Koreans have a saying, “Eat once in Jeonju, and you’ll be spoiled for life.” The city of 600,000, which is the capital of North Jeolla province, is a UNESCO Creative City for its gastronomical heritage.

On a visit this past July, I was excited to taste Jeonju’s legendary fare. So why, when I went with two Koreans to a famous dining district, was I staring down at a plates full of silkworm pupae, jelly made of smashed acorns, and a fish that has been fermented in its own urine?

We were at the Jeonmun Makgeolli Town, one of seven makgeolli towns prominently featured on tourism maps. Makgeolli is a Korean “farmer’s wine” made from rice and traditionally served in bowls. It has a reputation as being an honest, working man’s drink. It’s a drink that old men drink straight from the plastic bottle outside convenience stores at 3 in the afternoon. In fact, the national security law during the period of military rule was jokingly called the “Makgeolli Security Law” because so many people were arrested for things they said in casual conversation.

In short, makgeolli seemed to me to be a representative drink for the progressive stronghold of Jeolla, which was the site of both the 1894 Donghak Peasant Rebellion in Jeonju and the 1980 Gwangju Uprising to the south.

Read the full article: Silkworm pupae, urine fish, and farmer’s wine: A meal to remember in Korea’s culinary capital

Ian Bremmer on North Korean nuclear test and trade deal withdrawal

“China would be the big winner.”

North Korea conducted its sixth nuclear test, using a weapon it said was missile-ready that made a blast over 100 kilotons in magnitude, its biggest yet. Yesterday, it was also reported that Donald Trump is ready to pull out of the US-Korea Free Trade Agreement, news which editor Mitch Blatt commented on. Following are links and comments from others about the implications:

Ian Bremmer:

“Timing is more important here, given the economic pressure on South Korea from Beijing and the challenges of the North Korea conflict,” Bremmer said. “China would be the big winner, with [South] Korean president Moon [Jae-in] harder pressed to maintain present levels of security cooperation with the United States. If China is your key economic partner, there’s a lot less reason to listen to Washington.”

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham: “I am 100 percent certain that if Kim Jong-un continues to develop missile technology, that if diplomacy fails, there will be an attack by the United States against his weapons systems. I’m assuming the worst…”
BBC interview

Harry Kazianis:

My assessment is that Kim does not yet have an operational H-Bomb, but is doing what he always does—proving to the world he has the resources, technology and capability to deploy a powerful nuclear deterrent. But he could have taken an important first step towards testing a viable design.

What is to be done?

As a first step, it’s time to pull out all the stops to make sure we restrict the amount of financial resources going into North Korea and make it as hard as possible for Kim to build up his nuclear program and H-bomb designs…

Leif-Eric Easley, Foreign Policy: North Korea’s Nuclear Tests and Missile Tests Are Aimed at Splitting Its Rivals

James Palmer, Foreign Policy: North Korean Nuclear Test Spites Both Washington and Beijing

Who said Trump was never a non-interventionist?

In the wake of the U.S. launching over 50 missiles at targets in Syria in response to Syrian use of chemical weapons, which reportedly killed at least 74, some are surprised that Trump isn’t really a non-interventionist, nor is he a realist.

Some who aren’t surprised? The editors of Bombs + Dollars. There will be more to be written later, but for now, enjoy some of our related coverage on Trump and Syria.

Sumantra Maitra gets us started with his piece explaining why Trump was never a realist:

After the debate about Obama being a Realist, (he’s ofcourse not) it was inevitable the Neorealist tag would be on Donald Trump after his interminable dross for New York Times. It is an incoherent mess, with talking points which will make, Hayek to Say to Ricardo to Morgenthau to Waltz, all cringe in shame, but it had some interesting moments.

As I mentioned in the Obama article above, it is perhaps a bit back in fashion these days, with growing isolationist tendencies across both sides of the Atlantic, to use talking points of indifferent stoic state interest. While superficially it might sound realist, it is not, and it lacks theoretical rigor and coherence. Realists have opposed Trump previously, alongside others. And although I don’t speak on behalf of the entire Realist school of FP here, it is safe to presume, they will oppose any delusional lunatic again, and everytime.

Maitra: So, is Donald Trump a Neo-Realist?

And:
Maitra: The Realist civil war and Donald Trump
Maitra: Is Obama a Realist in Syria? TL-DR: No.
Blatt: No, Trump’s not a Realist. He’s not anything, because he has no ideas.
Blatt: Trump’s fake anti-war position slips

In a column I wrote after his inauguration, I explained that Trump is just a saber-rattling strongman who wants to use military intervention to prove his “toughness”:

The discourse over whether Donald Trump is “anti-interventionist” or a militant warmonger is misguided. Trump is neither, and yet he’s also both. Indeed, he has put forward arguments — contradictory as this may sound — for both ways of thinking.

It’s a misnomer, however, that Trump doesn’t want to send American troops abroad to fight terrorist and insurgent groups. After all, he’s repeatedly said he wants to “bomb the shit” out of ISIS in Syria. In March, he even paid lip-service to the need to send in up to 30,000 ground troops.

He has expressed the view that Obama has been a “weak” president for being relatively passive when confronting terrorism and crisis.

Blatt: Trump: Neither isolationist nor interventionist

Maitra, from 2016, on why sympathy for dead civilians is no justification for war:

Unsurprisingly, the worst kind of virtue signaling can start over a visual, and this poor boy was no exception. Historically visuals were used to rally people for a cause. Just one example, during the Indian mutiny of 1857, the power of British press was evident, as paintings of Lady Britannia delivering retributive justice to the evil Indian rebels was used to bring the entire country together in what was one of the toughest time of the Raj. Similar instances are littered throughout history.

Realist academics and policy makers cannot rely on hashtags or candle light vigils, because simply real life is different and there are more considerations than simplistic narratives. If anyone comes and shows dead children photos, and demands action or inaction, that is “Argumentum Ad Passiones” or in common parlance, an appeal to emotions. That is not however a ground for policy. What could be a policy in this situation?

Maitra: Baby pics and appeal to emotions

Correction: A previous version of this article said “over 100” people died in the sarin attack, a number that was cited in some early reports. Most reports in major media now report 74 verified deaths. B+D has updated this post to reflect that “at least 74” people died, which also includes the possibility of 100 or more.

An incredible liar: Post-modernism and the presidency

Women are paid 77 percent of what men are paid for the same job. Michael Brown was executed in cold blood. Donald Trump was wiretapped.

All lies, all made up to spread an agenda, reflections of a post-modern, reality-denying trend in the United States and the West. This trend is particularly attributed to academia, activism, and now, especially now, to politicians and the president.

Time‘s cover piece “Is Truth Dead?” includes some incredible quotes:

“I’m a very instinctual person, but my instinct turns out to be right,” Trump told TIME two days later, in a 20-minute phone interview from the Oval Office. The testimony, in other words, had not fazed him at all. He was still convinced he would be proved right. “I have articles saying it happened.”

“When I said ‘wire tapping,’ it was in quotes,” he said.

Read the full article.

Meanwhile, at Areo Magazine, I add more examples of unhinged lies from Trump:

Want to talk about ignoring facts for the purpose of serving a pre-existing agenda? At Trump’s February press conference, he claimed to have won the largest electoral college victory since Ronald Reagan in 1984. He won 306. Obama won 332 in the last election and 365 the election before that. That’s something you can check on Google. You don’t even need to do a survey on that.

Add that to, “I had the largest inauguration crowd ever,” “3 million people voted illegally,” and “the Bowling Green terrorist attack was ignored.”

Read More

Mitch Blatt in The National Interest on North Korea

Bombs + Dollars editor Mitchell Blatt was published in The National Interest‘s website on U.S.-China relations with regard to North Korea.

Although he put Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s comments in context, noting that they don’t necessarily mean a vast change in policy, he did say that certain actions the U.S. has already taken, like the deployment of THAAD, and any possible change in policy to be more aggressive, are not acts of provocation but rather responses to growing North Korean provocations.

“But if the Trump administration does up the ante, it will be because proposals to engage in toothless talks with North Korea—like that made this week by Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi—have utterly failed, and China hasn’t done its part to try to reign in its rogue frenemy,” he wrote. “Juxtaposed against its vitriolic response to the South Korean deployment of Terminal High Area Altitude Defense, China’s impassive response to multiple North Korean nuclear tests, always predicated on the same “firm opposition” talking point, which makes it look like China hasn’t been taking the threat of a nuclear North seriously.”

He pointed out that China hasn’t been faithfully enforcing some of the sanctions they agreed to against North Korea.

In summary, “As long as North Korea is an out-of-control threat, South Korea will need to take tough actions. China is reaping what it sowed from years of complacency.”

The whole article can be read here: Why China Must Confront North Korea.

The UK’s MoneyWeek also quoted Blatt’s article:

On the contrary, “China has largely itself to blame” if the US now pursues a more militaristic agenda towards North Korea, says Mitchell Blatt in the American magazine The National Interest. Beijing has spent years “turning a blind eye to sanctions violators and keeping the dangerous North Korean regime alive and its leaders well fed”, so it is not surprising that Washington now thinks “enough is enough”. China has also reneged on promises to limit imports of North Korean coal. Overall, “if China wants to avoid instability, then China must take an active role and take responsibility”.

Blatt also has an article about South Korea-China relations coming out in The Korea Times on Tuesday.

Page 1 of 4

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén

Get the most important and interesting articles right at your inbox. Sign up for B+D periodic emails.