Are We Headed For War?

"War, huh. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing." -- Edwin Starr

During the run-up to the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton attempted to paint Donald Trump as someone untrustworthy with foreign policy. Can you imagine him with his hands on our nuclear arsenal? she asked. Yet here we are, merely months into Donald Trump's presidency, and in the distance are the drumbeats of war.

For a president who ran so often on an isolationist foreign policy standpoint, there are at least three hotspots that seem to indicate war may not be so far off in the distance. Whether you believe or don't the Twitter feed of Rogue POTUS Staff (I believe them, for now), they indicate the president is leading us down a path of war. Let's review the conflicts, discuss the latest information and talk about possibilities.

North Korea
History: There's no question North Korea has nuclear capabilities. The question is whether they have the capabilities to hit Japan or the U.S. For decades, North Korea has been saber-rattling at the West. They've tested missiles. They've intermittently worked with and against South Korea. After Kim Jong Il died, his son, Kim Jong Un has ramped up missile tests and (presumably) nuclear tests.

Recent news: The Trump administration has been both hardline and seemingly dismissive. Generally, Trump has indicated a hard stance toward the Hermit Kingdom. On the campaign trail, he said he could solve it over a burger meal. He's since suggested that he'd like China's help, but that he would solve the North Korea issue on his own if need be.

Possibilities: It depends on what Chinese President Xi Jinping does. The meeting taking place today could have long-term implications (See more below). I can't see China suddenly giving the U.S. a green light for provoking or attacking North Korea. I also can't see the U.S. sending an assassination force or a missile strike, or even a series of missile strikes targeting nuclear facilities. That could just add more chaos to the mix or instigate matters further. South Korea and portions of Japan would be put in harm's way, as well as U.S. soldiers stationed there. Instead, I see more of the same: Tough talk from the U.S. about North Korea, North Korea continuing to build its missile/nuclear capabilities, and the tension continuing to rise.

Syria
History: Syria's been in a civil war for years, including President Bashar Al-Assad ignoring a "red line" that President Obama drew in the sand and then... did nothing about. As opposition groups stepped up to Al-Assad, the power vacuum allowed ISIS to step in in the eastern/northern portion of the country. Russia stepped in, saying their goal was to stop ISIS, but really helping Assad fight the opposition groups. ISIS is on the retreat, but the citizens of Syria and the opposition groups are all pretty much wiped out.

Recent news: Assad used a chemical attack on his own people. Russia's kind of ignoring it, and pretending it was the rebels, but it wasn't. It's heinous; the sort of red line that he's already crossed, but needs to be addressed. Sec. of Defense "Mad Dog" Mattis (who is beloved by Dems and the GOP) is briefing the President on options today. Trump told reporters today that "something should happen," the sort of completely vague answer that means nothing.

Possibilities: This is the one with likely action, in my opinion. I expect we first do missile strikes against the chemical weapons locations in Syria, then once that's settled, we send in additional troops, maybe 1-2,000. Do I think that'll do much? No, but it would help us finish off ISIS from another angle while pretending like we're actually doing something about Assad. Syria's a mess. I don't know what to do about Syria, either. But I'm not sure getting into a land war in the Middle East is the best option, either.

China
History: We've never been at war with China! They're communist, but not. They're either our biggest trading partner or our second biggest trading partner, depending on you refer to the European Union as a single entity. But that trade balance is one-sided. We import roughly four times as much from China as we do export to them. They make up about half of our global trade imbalance. But as far as exports go, they're not our biggest country to export to. They're third, behind Canada and Mexico.

Recent news: Now that Trump has decided his whole "Maybe NOT One China policy? Oops, never mind" issue, there's also the tricky issue of all those things he said about China on the campaign trail. They're raping us in trade. They're the source of the global warming hoax. They're the boogeyman to him. But more importantly than trade is another issue: Chinese islands. Thirty percent of the world's shipping trade flows through the South China Sea. Just about every country in the region has a claim on the waters as their sovereign territory: China, Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia (Brunei's claim is limited, since it's so small). The Spratly Islands are a bunch of (up until recently) uninhabited islands in the middle that no country really claimed. But China took some and started building them/expanding them into mini-bases with residents, so Vietnam did the same and the Philippines did a bit too. But China's the dominant military, navy and air force in the region. They've started flexing their muscles. They lost in international court to the Philippines sovereignty claim and kind of just ignored it. It's like when a big kid slowly starts inching toward another little kid on a park bench. Eventually they're practically on top of the little kid, right? That's what China's doing.

Possibilities: Maybe we send an aircraft carrier over there or something? We don't have a lot of power, and we really don't want to get in a war over a bunch of tiny islands that no one really lives on. Saying "knock it off" doesn't do anything without the power to back it up, and China knows we're not about to do anything of real importance. I'm going to say this again: WE DO NOT WANT WAR WITH CHINA.

No Winners in Gorsuch Confirmation

I'm a big Supreme Court fan. I love reading about it. I love learning about who are secretly friends (RBG and Scalia! <3!). I love learning the ins and outs. But... I am so sick of the Gorsuch confirmation. There are no heroes. There are no winners. There are only varying levels of losers, and I want it to be over with.

I've already talked about this path of Garland/Gorsuch/nuclear option back in this post, and it's a pretty interesting read if you've missed it.

The Senate has now passed the nuclear option, and Gorsuch will be confirmed with, say, 52-55 votes. But what have we (preemptively) learned from this battle? I've learned two things: 1) The Democrats have a problem with messaging. Their best bet in this fight was not that Gorsuch was unqualified (he isn't), but that he's out of the mainstream. That's a much better argument to make to the American people. Instead, even the new DNC chair said he was unqualified. Some senators, like my state's own Sen. Claire McCaskill, said that Gorsuch's ideology was too rigid, and that was why she was voting no. Side note: Missouri Republicans leaked a speech she gave on the subject at a fundraiser about her struggles over the vote. I found it to be honest, difficult and well-reasoned rather than some big exposé. 2) A friendly Senate is gone. Republicans abused "the rules" by filibustering 138 (!) judges and appointees while in the Senate minority under Clinton and Obama, and Democrats mostly played by the rules (only 10 such filibusters in the Bush years). But the Democrats got tired of Republican obstructionism — If you're not going to play by the rules, we'll change some of them. When the Democrats lost power in the Senate, that meant they also had to play by the rules that they had changed. Republicans see no use in hanging onto rules that aren't really being used anymore anyway, and are prepared to toss "the rules" entirely. Mourn the moderates of each party, because their allegiance is being tested by the nuclear option.

Summary Judgments

Muppets + Rappers = Thing I didn't know I was going to laugh at.  •  •  •  I thought this little history of the deepest hole ever made was kind of fascinating. In particular: at a certain depth, the immensely pressurized/heated rock stops acting rock-like and starts acting like plastic.  •  •  •  This week's continuing adventures of the Schrodinger's Truth of Obama wiretapping Trump: There's no truth to the Susan Rice accusation. I could go into more detail, but that's it. Let's move on.  •  •  •  I'm so proud of my friend Emily Smith and her kids at Pittsburg High School. They're rightfully gaining national attention after investigating the background of their incoming principal and finding her qualifications... lacking.  •  •  •  I'm rarely surprised by much in politics, but the news that Devin Nunes was stepping out of the Trump-Russia investigation surprised me. It's not that I don't think he should have, but that I didn't think he would, given a lack of Republican pressure. Media note: He stepped down on a day the Senate was enacting the "nuclear option" — meaning his move wouldn't be the day's top story. Smart tactic.  •  •  •  For those of you not in the KC area, it's been rainy. It rained 13 straight days until today. Because of that, I didn't run earlier this week. That said, I did lose another pound of weight, so yay!  •  •  •  The other night, Evie was upset and, in trying to calm her down, mewled like a cat. So now she's decided the best game is to ask me to be a cat. So I mew and cuddle, but ... that's not how she wants me to play cat. I'm still trying to figure it out. So far, I know that "scratching" at her is part of it, but she still doesn't seem happy. Do I need to ignore her like a real cat? Do I need to use a litter box? I have no idea.