Tag: politics

How to be Safe

Much can be said about how and why almost everyone on earth has risen from poverty to affluence. Two of the most important are free markets that allow entrepreneurs to invent and build, and peace and security that allow our work to build consumer goods and services rather than weapons of war.

Taking the second of these, the safety of our persons and our property allows us to specialize and trade – an absolutely critical condition for flourishing. The more broadly we can trade the greater is the wealth producing potential of our efforts. So a key question and the focus of this blog is how we maximize our safety in order to maximize trade the production of consumer goods and services rather than weapons of war.

Since 9/11 almost one million people have been killed in wars and when including indirect deaths from wars the number rises to around 4.5 million. The U.S. alone has spent over $21 trillion dollars on defense since 9/11.  This is 5.25% of the U.S.’s cumulative GDP over that period of $400 trillion.

If we could trust every country in the world, we could get rid of our military complex and add that amount to our incomes. Obviously that would be unrealistic thus some defense spending will always be necessary. However, with the deployment of skillful diplomacy it can be greatly reduced and the losses from actual wars could potentially be eliminated.

We must live among other people. If we are good neighbors, we will be safer from attacks (verbal or worse) by those around us. Being a good neighbor requires being trustworthy (honest) and behaving in ways that take into account and respect the interests of our neighbors. What is true on the block and village is true globally as well. The adoption of mutually agreed rules/norms for our interactions with others is an important aspect of our safety and productivity.

Within each country, at least, agreement has been reached on which side of the road to drive, what frequency we can broadcast on, and what voltage our electricity will be. Across boarders we have agreed on setting dates and time (the calendar), airline overflight rules, and the orbits our satellites will occupy. After WWII, in addition to the UN and its many agencies, NATO, the World Bank, the IMF, and World Trade Organization, countries established the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), International Telecommunication Union (ITU), and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Moreover, the US and most every other country have established embassies in each other’s countries in order to serve the needs of their own citizens abroad and to maintain dialog and informed relations with each other’s governments.

An important part of soft power diplomacy are the supportive relationships with “allies” who contribute to mutual defense, thus lowering its cost. But good (cooperative) relationships in general are an important contributor to our safety and commercial interaction with other countries. To a large extent formal rules of war and treatment of others have promoted peace in the world.

Violating these rules (e.g. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and U.S. invasion of Venezuela) raises the cost of our security. It makes us less safe and less wealthy. https://wcoats.blog/2026/01/03/war-2/

President Trump has angered our friends and allies with his tariff and other threats and a generally bullying approach to our relations with other countries. He has created enemies where we didn’t have them before. After bombing Venezuela and kidnaping its President, he is now threatening the same for Cuba, Panama, Columbia, Iran, and Greenland. Denmark’s government, which controls Greenland’s foreign affairs and defense, has told the White House to “stop the threats.”

Protests of US lawlessness is growing. As but one example:

JOINT DECLARATION BY THE GOVENMENTS OF

BRAZIL, CHILE, COLOMBIA, MEXICO, SPAIN, AND URUGUAY

“The governments of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Spain, and Uruguay, in light of the gravity of the events that have occurred in Venezuela and reaffirming their commitment to the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter, make the following joint declaration:

“We are deeply concerned and reject the military actions unilaterally carried out on Venezuelan territory, which infringe fundamental principles of international law, in particular the prohibition of the use and threat of force, and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, as enshrined in the United Nations Charter. These actions set an extremely dangerous precedent for peace and security in the region and endanger civilian populations.”

Trump has isolated the U.S. by breaking the rules and angering our friends and alias. We are much less secure than in the past.  WP: “Venezuela-Trump-Global Law and Order”

Trade

Without trade each household/family would have to be self-sufficient, i.e., would only have to consume what they themselves could make, grow or do. No one would doubt the dire poverty the world would endure. Even trade limited to your neighborhood, with each household specializing in a few things to trade with other families specializing in other needs or wants would significantly increase everyone’s income. The wider the range of trade the greater the degree of specialization and increased income possible.

Expanding the potential for trade requires the ability to transport goods and serves over longer distances. The benefits of such connectedness extend well beyond higher incomes. Quoting from George Will’s wonderful book The Conservative Sensibility: Referring to the:

“Erie Canal. [Dewitt] Clinton [the sixth governor of New York] saw this project as a means of preventing states in the West from detaching themselves from the Union. The canal would “bind the union together by indissoluble ties” because the people would be “habituated to frequent intercourse and beneficial inter-communication,” and all Americans would be “bound together by the golden ties of commerce and the adamantine chains of interest.” The canal also, and inadvertently, helped to bring down the old order in Europe. By bringing cheap wheat from America’s Great Plains, the canal struck at the roots of Europe’s landed aristocracy.”

Implicit in the above is private ownership of one’s production. People work hard for their own benefit but to benefit from trade they must take account of the needs and wants of others. Trade must be win-win or it will not take place. I benefit from selling my production and you benefit from buying it. Communism—communal production—lacks the personal (selfish) incentive to work hard and has broadly failed as a system. Also from George Will: “In China, once collective farms were disbanded in 1978 under the leadership of the reformer Deng Xiaoping, agriculture output doubled in the space of just four years.”

The topic of trade keeps returning and I have written about it often. Rather than repeat myself, yet again, I will share some of those earlier blogs:

Econ 101—Trade in very simple terms
The politics of Trade
Econ 101: Tony Judt on Trade

Our President

When our government functions properly, each President is elected because the majority of voters trust his/her leadership and largely agree with his/her policy proposals. When he/she assumes office he/she appoints department and agency heads and senior management who agree with his/her policies and are committed to implementing them. However, the vast majority of government employees (the civil service) hold their jobs because of their nonpartisan competence to execute the regular functions of government. Though elected to implement his/her promised policies, the President heads the government for the benefit of all Americans, not just those who voted for him/her.

Our current President, Donald Trump, has adopted a very different approach. At Charlie Kirk’s memorial service in Arizona on September 21, 2025, President Donald Trump gave a eulogy that stated his approach clearly. Following a speech by Charlie’s widow— Erika Kirk– who said she forgave her husband’s alleged killer and urged love for one’s enemies—Trump said, “That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent, and I don’t want the best for them. I’m sorry, Erika. Maybe you and the group can convince me otherwise, but I can’t stand my opponent”. 

Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump has launched a sweeping campaign to use the federal government against those he perceives as political enemies, fulfilling his campaign promise of “retribution.” His actions have combined formal Justice Department prosecutions with broader administrative, financial, and regulatory retaliation against critics and opponents.​

Justice Department Prosecutions

Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ), led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, has indicted several high-profile critics including former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and former National Security Adviser John Bolton. Many of these cases were initiated shortly after Trump publicly urged prosecutions on Truth Social or in speeches.

Expansion of Presidential Control

Under a broad interpretation of the “unitary executive” theory, Trump has expanded direct presidential control over previously independent agencies. He dismissed thousands of career employees in agencies such as the IRS and DOJ, replacing them with loyalists, and ordered investigations into opponents across multiple sectors, including education, media, and civil society. His administration’s “Weaponization Working Group” reportedly monitors and investigates state and federal officials who previously investigated or criticized him.​ Most concerning he has fired all Inspector Generals who monitor the executive’s compliance with the law.

Use of Financial and Regulatory Power

Trump has also leveraged federal contracting and tax policy to punish critics. Liberal law firms, universities, and media outlets that opposed him have been subjected to audits, funding withdrawals, or bans on federal contracts. The IRS—restructured under his direction—has reportedly targeted nonprofit organizations and universities seen as left-leaning, threatening to revoke tax-exempt status for political reasons.​

Broader Campaign Against Civil Society

The administration’s actions have extended to immigration and education systems. Activists, international students, and visa-holders accused of criticizing Trump’s policies have faced deportation or visa revocations, according to multiple reports. Tourism and foreign students are important exports. Their reduction is adding to our trade deficit. Federal oversight of university curricula and media licensing has been tightened.​

Political and Legal Reactions

Democratic lawmakers like Senator Chris Murphy have called these measures an “authoritarian use of presidential power,” warning that Trump’s systematic punishment of dissenters marks “one of the most dangerous moments America has ever faced”. Foreign governments and legal scholars have echoed fears of democratic backsliding as independent institutions are subordinated to presidential control.​

In sum, Trump’s second administration has explicitly weaponized federal agencies to investigate, prosecute, and financially damage those viewed as enemies, blending legal action with bureaucratic pressure in what observers describe as an unprecedented campaign of political retribution.  Trump’s spread of hate is intensified by his frequently claimed authority “to do whatever I want as president” based, he claims, on Article II of the US constitution.

Trump’s bullying has not stopped at our borders. He has attacked our friends with tariffs and sanctions losing allies right and left. The American beacon on the hill has sunk to the bully in your face. America’s place in the world is sinking fast. Will the Republicans on the Hill wake up and stop him. The Supreme Court has been a mixed bag.

Econ 101: Government Budgets

Newspapers are full of articles about the deaths or other losses that will result from proposed budget cuts. Today’s Washington Post, for example, headlined a story on USAID cuts “USAID cuts may cause 14 million more deaths in next five years, study says”  “Washington post /2025/07/01/”

If the government’s spending on X is reduced (aside from any improvement in efficiency) the benefits of that spending will be lost. But our resources are limited. If we spend more on X we have less to spend on Y.  So when we lament the losses from reduced spending on X we should take account of the gain from the increased spending on other things.

To put a bit of flesh on this issue, consider the following: “The administration has cut more than a hundred contracts and grants from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the HIV and AIDS program credited with saving millions of lives in poor countries. President Donald Trump has shut down the agency that signed off on most PEPFAR spending and fired other staffers who supported it.”  “Rubio-pepfar-aids”

Evaluating whether this cut is “good or bad” is not easy because determining the likely alternative use of the money saved is not easy. If we stick to a fixed government budget total, the alternative use by the government of the money saved might save even more lives (or maybe not). But the saving could also be given to tax payers whose use of that money would reflect their own personal needs and priorities.  

The process used by Elon Musk’s DOGE to arrive at the spending and/or personnel cuts they proposed was not transparent thus is largely unknown to us. But I have serious doubts that it was appropriate. Semafor offers the following advice:

“A lot of US government work is highly inefficient, says the science reformer Stuart Buck. Federally funded scientists say they spend 44% of their research time on bureaucracy, federal procurement is “broken” and often results in the government buying products that don’t work, and “the Paperwork Reduction Act paradoxically results in endless paperwork.” “Many such cases,” says Buck. “We should have an official effort to address these issues… We could even call it a ‘Department of Government Efficiency.’” As you might be aware, there is one: It is “widely viewed as a failure,” but the basic idea is sound. How could we make it good?

“The first step, says Buck, would be taking a long time to deeply understand how each government agency works, so you don’t mistake routine human error or some statistical artifact for fraud. Second, it should focus on high-value reforms, like outdated data systems or software. Third, it should learn from previous attempts to cut red tape — because there have been many, not all of which worked. And importantly, a good DOGE would not mistake things we don’t use for “waste” — like an insurance policy, we hope pandemic preparedness infrastructure and fire departments are never used, but they’re in place in case we need them. The real-world DOGE is a failure, says Buck, because it ignored all of these strictures.”  “Semafor.com/newsletter/06/30/2025/”

I think some, if not many, government programs or activities should be reformed or eliminated. But those the public really want must be paid for by the public paying additional taxes or lending to the government (buying US bonds). U.S. debt is dangerously high (123% of US GDP) and continuing to grow.  So to the extend spending is not reduced, taxes should be raised.   

Looking for win-win

The essence of trade is that both the seller and buyer benefit (win-win). Without that feature the trade would not take place. The expansion of trade locally and then globally increased the output and thus incomes of the average person dramatically.

In 1820, about 80% of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty (defined as living on less than $2.15 per day in today’s terms). By 2019, this figure had fallen to roughly 10%. This decline is especially notable given that the global population increased more than sevenfold during this period.


The pace of poverty reduction accelerated in recent decades. From 1990 to 2019, the global extreme poverty rate dropped from 43% to below 10%, with the fastest declines occurring since the 1990s. This progress was driven largely by rapid economic growth in Asia, particularly in China and India.

The increase in win-win gains in income from trade have been promoted by broad agreement on rules and norms for “fair trade” to maximize the increase in incomes that results. These have been developed over time through what is now called the World Trade Organization (WTO). Tragically, rather than further improving its rules, the U.S. has undermined the WTO by refusing to appoint new members to its dispute resolution body.

The benefits of such collaborative cooperation have been sought and gained in other areas as well. To take one, the climate benefits of nuclear energy also carries the risks of destruction from nuclear bombs. Agreements among the countries with such capacity to contain and minimize the associated risks are reflected in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) of 1968 (extended in 1995). The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT, 1996), several bilateral agreements with the USSR/Russia and others have further reduced the risks.

The dramatic development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) programs promises incredible increases in our incomes but also carries risks. As with nuclear energy, all would benefit from agreements that limit these risks. Cooperating in developing such guard rails is in everyone interest. The US is making a big mistake in attempting to stifle  China’s AI development rather than a win-win cooperation with them to maximize its promise while minimizing its risk.

The case for such cooperation with China is powerfully made by Alvin Graylin in a recent presentation to the Committee for the Republic (on whose board I serve) the other day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg6brPvFJGw.

DEI—a nuanced assessment

DEI — “diversity, equity and inclusion” programs or policies are efforts to promote fairness and full participation of people who have been historically underrepresented or subjected to discrimination. The normal standard of fairness when employing workers is that they are hired (or admitted to college) on the basis of merit—who best satisfied to the requirements for the job. This is what taxpayers who want the best results from their tax dollars, want as well.

Many universities set aside the admission of the best qualified students to reflect the fact that may blacks who might have greater potential than their past performance test score indicated because of racial discrimination should be given preferential treatment. But these “affirmative action” programs where struct down by the Supreme Courts 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and its companion case against the University of North Carolina, which effectively ended race-based affirmative action in college admissions.

To make room for more blacks, Harvard had raised the bar and thus discriminated against Asian applicants with higher scores. It is appropriate that the standards of equal treatment and merit should be observed for government jobs and public universities.

But private firms and colleges should be able to hire or admit whoever they want. Both firms and colleges may well want the social benefits from greater diversity. Not only can it make the workplace more interesting but the broadened understanding of different racial and religious groups generates greater social harmony as well.

I don’t know what DEI programs generally did or aimed for and am quite willing to believe that they wasted human resources. However, that is quite different from the desirability of properly educating our children about different races and cultures and the history of slavery and harms of racial discrimination. Along with civics, such instruction belongs in elementary school curriculums. Just as the enlightened treatment of gays, blacks, Muslims and other groups in movies and TV shows has led the way toward better understanding, exposure and education are important for building a better and more accepting society.

The government should not interfere in the choices of private firms and university about the composition of their work forces and student bodies.

Facebook

Our wise founding fathers established a government to protect the rights and property of a free people, who made their own decisions about how to live. They wisely did not create a government to tell us how to live—nor what to believe.

A society whose members don’t know what to believe, with people who spread lies for whatever nefarious reasons, has a serious problem. Living in communities as we all do requires a degree of trust in a common understanding of the facts. But who is to determine what is true and on what basis? In a free society the responsibility of evaluating what to believe rests with each of us individually.

“The American Founders told everyone who would listen (and some who wouldn’t) that the republic could not endure without a virtuous citizenry. They warned that the Constitution was necessary but not sufficient.”[1]  The quality of our lives and of the functioning of our communities depends on the choices and behavior of each of us. Our freedom to behave as we choose will only produce a successful community if its members behave virtuously. The maximization of each individual’s utility (happiness) as we economists might put it, depends, in part, on how well our individual preferences fit into the community’s norms and expectations. No man is an Island.

Our specific values might come from our religious and/or philosophical beliefs. These can differ but must include respect for the rights of our neighbors to live by their own lights. But decisions based on incorrect information will be suboptimal or worse. The government might require that firms transparently disclose relevant information about their products (such as content) but should not impose its own judgment about the truth—governments themselves lie too often to be the final orbiters of truth.

Meta CEO Mark “Zuckerberg announced earlier this week that his platforms would part ways with the third-party fact-checking organizations he had employed to police speech on Facebook and Instagram.

“‘The fact-checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created, especially in the U.S.,’ he said.”  “An urgent meeting of the fact check legion-of-doom—Reason”  FaceBook posts will continue to allow comments by its users challenging alleged facts.  Zuckerberg, who met with President-elect Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago on Friday, said his company is “going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression on our platforms.”

It is up to us to evaluate what to believe and what to pass on. This is not a trivial responsibility, but the market works hard to help. Just as we learn how to successfully do anything else (Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic), we need to learn how to evaluate information we are given and to carefully choose sources that we trust. There are private fact checking organizations we are free to consult or ignore. We are free to choose news sources that we believe adhere to the standards of objective journalism. But if we do not exorcise our judgement wisely, our society will be less “successful” than otherwise.[2] But it would violate the wisdom of our founders and the best interests of a free society to give that responsibility to the government.

[1] Jonathan Rauch, “Cross Purposes, Christianity’s Broken Bargain with Democracy” January 2025

[2] Jonathan Rauch. The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2021. 280 pp.

Trump

President Reagan pointed to our beacon on the hill as the foundation of our relationship and leadership with the rest of the world. Soon to be President Trump’s approach is to threaten and bully the rest of the world.

“US President-elect Donald Trump’s trade policy challenges the post-war global trading system. By rejecting the World Trade Organization’s principles of non-discrimination and reciprocity, Trump proposes a power-based approach that would fundamentally alter international economic relations, risking the predictability and fairness that have underpinned global trade for seven decades.”  “How Trump threatens the world trading system”

But he hasn’t stopped there.  Though promising to end our “forever wars” and restraint in our international relations, Trump is coming on as the most aggressive President in memory:

“Many people have been understandably astonished by Donald Trump’s recently proclaimed desires to “take back” the Panama Canal “in full, quickly and without question” and to take over the self-governing Danish territory of Greenland.

“While Trump has written that “For purposes of National Security and Freedom around the world, the United States feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity,” he would at least appear to be willing to pay Denmark for Greenland, as the U.S. paid Denmark for the Danish West Indies, renamed the U.S. Virgin Islands, in 1917.” “A thought on the Panama Canal and Greenland”

A bully, who forces rules on others that he disregards himself, will not serve America’s nor the worlds interests. We all want America to be safe, prosperous, and free. Thus, we must hope for and where possible promote a successful term for this and any other President. An important role can be, and hopefully will be played by the Republicans in Congress, starting with careful vetting of Trumps cabinet nominations. “Trump-bully-world-America-foreign-policy”

Tariffs

“Posting on his Truth Social platform, Trump said [Monday] that on the first day of his presidency he will charge Mexico and Canada a 25% tariff on all products coming into the U.S. He added in a separate social-media post that he would impose an additional 10% tariff on all products that come into the U.S. from China,… That would come on top of existing tariffs the U.S. has already imposed on Chinese goods.

“’This Tariff will remain in effect until such time as Drugs, in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens stop this Invasion of our Country!’ Trump wrote.” WSJ: Trump pledges tariffs on Mexico Canada and China”

A tariff is a tax on an import. They are permitted by the World Trade Organization when leveed on goods receiving state subsidies in order to create a level playing field for trade. Such global trade has made an enormous contribution to the standard of living around the world.  “Ernie Tedeschi, former chief economist for President Joe Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers, said the North American tariffs would cost the typical American household almost $1,000 per year.” WP: “Trump tariffs-China Mexico Canada”

The normal expectation is that the tariff will reduce U.S. demand for the taxed import and encourage its domestic production. But the US labor force is fully employed and can only increase domestic production of the targeted goods by shifting workers from the production of goods the US has a comparative advantage in thus reducing our overall income. Though employment of manufacturing workers has declined in the US, manufacturing output has not because worker productivity has increased. In fact, our imports have not shipped American jobs overseas as increasing productivity has resulted in reduced manufacturing employment most everywhere in the world, including China, surely a good thing. WC: “Trade protection and corruption”

Immediately after Trump’s tariff announcement, the exchange rate of the dollar strengthened. A stronger dollar reduces the cost of imports (but increases the cost to foreigners of our exports), thus undoing to some extent the demand reducing impact of the tariff. But it hurts our exports because of their higher price to foreign purchaser and reduces our overall standard of living.

China and others hit with this tax are likely to retaliate with their own tariffs. “Under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which took effect in 2020, goods moving among the three North American nations cross borders on a duty-free basis. ‘Obviously, unilaterally imposing a 25 percent tariff on all trade blows up the agreement,’ said John Veroneau, a partner at Covington & Burling in Washington.”  WP: “Trump tariffs-China Mexico Canada”

Should Trump actually impose these tariff’s he would (again) be violating the law, which only allows the President to impose tariffs without Congressional approval for national security reasons: WC: “Tariff abuse”

Trump’s threatened tariffs are not even leveed on the goods he wants to restrict (drugs and illegal aliens). Thus, unlike traditional tariffs they would be leveed to pressure Mexico and Canada to take other actions Trump wants. They are bargaining ploys. So at the cost of raising prices and lowering incomes in the US, weakening the global trading rules from which we have benefited so much, and weakening the checks and balances limiting an over extended executive branch, Trump may be playing his bargaining game again. But in my opinion the cost to us and the world trading system is too high.

War

My many visits to Sarajevo, Mostar, and Banja Luka in 1996-7 exposed me to the devastation of war, as did my multiple visits to Pristina in 1999-2000, and my 23 visits to Kabul between 2002-13.  My two months in Bagdad as part of the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2004 and five, two week follow up visits added live fire to my “post” war experiences that left me jumpy for many months after returning home.  None of these came close to the front-line experiences of reporter Robert Fisk, whose accounts are reproduced in his thick book “The Great War for Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East,” though he reported from the same countries I had worked in.

Fisk’s reports on his interviews with actual people and his viewing of their butchered bodies and mass graves in the dessert confronts his readers with the real victims of war. To characterize his accounts as heart wrenching doesn’t come close to the true tragedies he reports. The deceptions and lies of all sides, add to the immense tragedies of our post WW wars, which have accomplished nothing but death and destruction.

The current Middle East wars (Israel’s slaughter of men, women and child in Gaza, West Bank, and Lebanon), following decades of Israel’s abusive rule over Palestinian territories, is beyond belief and too many Americans remain silent.  But no side has been “pure.” Our illegal and lie filled invasion of Iraq in 2003 followed years of American and British bombing of Iraq following the Gulf War in 1991 (Desert Storm). Our sanctions of Iraq over that period staved to death 1.5 million Iraqi’s, mainly children (despite the Food for Oil program), and the U.S. military’s use of depleted uranium munitions in that war dramatically increased Iraqi cancer cases and birth defects in the years that followed. Fisk reports on these and US and UK efforts to keep it all quiet.

Some of Iraq’s health problems were also aggravated by Iraq’s use of chemical warfare agents such as mustard gas and sarin during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88. The United States, being on Iraq’s side at that time, ignored its use of these chemicals, which remain in the soil today.  American leadership, which is desired by much of the world, is undermined by such double standards. Our government lies to its own citizens about its illegal behavior as well. Edward Snowden is paying a very high price for exposing some of it. We owe him a lot.

American interference in other countries’ affairs (other than by being the beacon on the hill) has rarely served our national interest. While we have blindly assumed that we would be welcomed as liberators in Panama (1989-90), Iraq (1991, and 2003), Somalia (1993, 2007, and 2010), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1994), Afghanistan (1998, and 2001), Serbia (1999), Libya (1986, and 2011) and Syria (2014)–(need I mention Vietnam?), we failed to understand that peoples of most every country hate invaders no mater who they are. Moreover, our ignorance and arrogance made us very inept occupiers.

In Ukraine and Israel our interference stops short of sending our solders (almost). But Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could have easily and sensibly been avoided if the U.S. had encouraged the negotiations Russia sought in December 2021 “Ukraine’s and  dead and  war”.  Following Russia’s invasion, we tragically threw cold water on the agreement almost reached between Ukraine and Russia in the March 2022 negotiations in Turkey. ‘Peace negotiations in the Russian invasion of Ukraine”  So onward to the last Ukrainian. The final outcome is very likely to be identical to the March 2022, Istanbul Communiqué but with 120,000 dead and 600,000 wounded Russians and 70,000 dead soldiers and 10,000 dead civilians and 140,000 wounded Ukrainians and 500 billions of dollars’ worth of property destruction. In other words, Russia and Ukraine paid a huge price (with our help) for nothing.

Fisk gives human faces to the real people who pay the price for our aggressions. This horrible cost in lives and property has contributed nothing to our national security. America has much to offer the world and has contributed much to the quality of life around the world. But it has done so with its example, trade, and diplomacy, not its army. The principles and institutions on which American was founded and has flourished have served us well when we have remained faithful to them.

President elect Trump has nominated Tulsi Gabbard to become his Director of National Intelligence. When she left the Democratic party two years ago and endorsed Trump for President this August she praised Trump for “having the courage to meet with adversaries, dictators, allies and partners alike in the pursuit of peace, seeing war as a last resort” and condemned the Biden administration for the U.S. “facing multiple wars on multiple fronts in regions around the world and closer to the brink of nuclear war than we ever have been before.”

“In 2022, she also faulted the Biden administration for failing to address Russian concerns as it invaded Ukraine.

“’This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if Biden Admin/NATO had simply acknowledged Russia’s legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine’s becoming a member of NATO, which would mean US/NATO forces right on Russia’s border,’

Following a 2017 trip to visit Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, Gabbard defended meeting with an American enemy by saying:

“I think we should be ready to meet with anyone if there’s a chance it can help bring about an end to this war, which is causing the Syrian people so much suffering,”  “The Hill–Tulsi Gabbard-Trump Nomination — 11/14/24”

 I hope that she still thinks this way.