Posted on 12/15/2016 7:51:23 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Speculation that John Bolton is being considered as Deputy Secretary of State is causing some consternation among Republican Senators. Senator Rand Paul has already publicly stated his opposition. And now, according to the New York Times Senate Foreign Relations Chair Bob Corker is also expressing misgivings. Behind the scenes, Condoleezza Rice, Stephen Hadley and Robert Gates (three Bush administration veterans) are reportedly lobbying Senators against his confirmation. Meanwhile, those same three bigwigs are publicly endorsing Trump’s pick for Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
He is, of course, a well known hawk. He’s consistently advocated going to war with Iran. He was also an ardent promoter of the Iraq war (which, incidentally, Trump claims he opposed.) From his perch as an undersecretary of state Bolton helped skew the intelligence to fit his prior convictions that war must be waged.
To be sure, Bolton’s hawkishness is extreme. But many Republicans, including Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley, also supported the Iraq war and favor assertive policies toward Iran. Rather, what truly distinguishes Bolton from figures like Rice, Hadley, or even Tillerson is his singularly uncompromising approach to international relations. Every transaction — no matter how ancillary to American interests — is zero-sum. There is no middle ground; nothing to cede in order to advanced shared interests. Indeed, he titled his memoir “Surrender is Not an Option” and his actions in public life demonstrate that he believes this motto to be true whether confronting an existential threat or a minor nuisance.
This leads to his penchant for alienating America’s most important allies. In his memoir, Bolton portrays as his greatest adversary in Turtle Bay not the representative from Iran or Cuba or Venezuela, but the British ambassador Emyr Jones Parry. He mercilessly derides as an “EUroid” because unlike Bolton, the United Kingdom did not view every transaction as zero-sum, but was willing to compromise to reach shared goals.
Perhaps the most telling manifestation is something I reported contemporaneously. To set the context: in 2005, the United Nations was negotiating a series of major reforms to coincide with its 60th anniversary. Among other things, it was the year that the old Human Rights Commission was abolished and a new Human Rights Council created and was when the principle of “Responsibility to Protect” was enshrined in UN doctrine. Each of these reforms, and others, were included in a single “summit outcome document” that diplomats had painstakingly negotiated for months. Then Bolton came along and blew up the negotiations. That itself was not unique–American diplomats in the Bush era had a habit of upending multilateral negotiations. Rather, what was truly extra-ordinary were the red lines he drew, including that anodyne references to the anti-poverty Millennium Development Goals be removed from the document. This standoff over the MDGs threatened to scuttle the entire negotiations, so Kofi Annan facilitated a call between UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Only then did Bolton relent.
The fact that Bolton was willing to go toe-to-toe with the UK (and the rest of the world) over something as trite as a mere reference to the MDGs is a useful example of how Bolton’s zero sum approach to negotiations so profoundly alienates allies. Insiders like Condoleezza Rice saw this behavior first hand. She often had to clean up the damage Bolton had done to the very alliances the United States relied on to advance far more important national security goals like the ongoing war in Iraq and confronting Iran and North Korea’s nuclear program.
Bolton as Deputy Secretary of State may also undermine the stated goals of his potential boss, the Secretary of State. In remarks upon being nominated as Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson said his priorities would be around “strengthening our alliances, pursuing shared national interests and enhancing the strength, security and sovereignty of the United States.”
It would be very hard, if not impossible, to accomplish these goals with John Bolton serving as his deputy. And it appears that several key Republican foreign policy hands would agree.
I agree that Bolton is frequently too aggressive - and I generally very much disagree with interventionism. That said, I would like to know what the fake news was.
However, Iran is one country that must be checked and cannot be allowed to build nukes under any circumstances. Bushes wars were (and I said so at the time) idiotic. War with Iran may be necessary (as long as it doesn’t start WWIII with Russia).
We wouldn’t want to upset the UN.
1. Chemical weapons were seen trucked to Syria from Iraq, prior to our invasion.
2. Yellow cake was most definitely found, and a chemical weapons repository was also found and later we destroyed it.
3. Saddam gave us permission to restart the war after only one RADAR lock-on during the cease-fire. Saddam broke this agreement multiple times a week.
The war was perfectly defensible. The question is, “Was it needed for terrorists that came from Saudi Arabia?”
Bull crap.
We didn’t go to war to find “stockpiles” we went to war to eliminate a mass murderer who was in violation of the Gulf War cease fire of 1991 ... not to mention every single UN resolution following it up to the day of the invasion of 2003; because Iraq provided terrorists with training in forgery among other things; because Iraq was harboring the bomb maker whose team attacked the World Trade center in 1993, because Iraq was harboring the terrorist cells of 1999 Millennium plotter Zarqawi [whose followers, along with Iraqi General al Dhouri’s men, eventually became the core of ISIS under his leadership]; because Iraq was funding terrorists in the Philippines who were decapitating tourists including Americans; because an Iraqi diplomat was involved in a bombing that killed a US soldier in the Philippines; because Iraq was developing a long range missile in violation of the terms imposed on it; because Iraq failed to turn over all prototypes and blueprints [which was proven when we found them after the invasion]; and because sanctions had demonstrably failed to force Saddam into compliance with providing a full and verifiable inventory of what equipment, prototypes, plans, precursors, growth media, product and delivery systems it claimed to have possessed nor did it provide a verifiable account of what it destroyed; and because Iraq was barring the questioning of its scientists, some of whom turned up later in Libya’s nuclear program.
Yes, Bolton is a good choice. And he did not fabricate intelligence on Iraq. He is a hawk on Iran, but so is president elect Trump. So why shouldn’t Trump have a like-minded person at State?
In other words, the UN was dug in and unwilling to budge from their position, Bolton was dug in on his and unwilling to budge. But he's hard headed and stubborn while they are not, somehow.
1. Chemical weapons were seen trucked to Syria from Iraq, prior to our invasion.
Which Assad used to break Obama’s “red line”
Bull, that war destabilized the entire middle east, lead to the rise of ISIS and caused a massive Islamic migration to Europe and the USA. Bush was an idiot, no more neocons ever again.
Thank you both. There were very good reasons we went into Iraq. I was there in 2003 and 2004, had co-workers at Salmon Pak, and saw some of the dirty bombs they had been preparing.
The whole “no WMD” baloney is just that, BALONEY.
I was in favor of eliminating Saddam Hussein because that was one more enemy of Israel they did not need. Can you imagine Israel getting hit by both Iraq and Iran?
I like no-compromise people. They understand principle and eschew the idea that all choices must be grey.
If one person offers you poison and the other offers you food, do you eat a little of both in the interests of “compromise” ?
It should be a four letter word.
Donald please pick Bolton
it'll make you feel better.
You are a fool.
No one but you advocates imperialism, and, third worldist imperialism like Sadam and Obama, which invariably end up being Chinese and Russian banana imperial districts inherited from the heinous British Crown defunct.
They fear John Bolton simply because he stands his ground, he sees what he believes is wrong and stands up to the bullies in the world. Why does the truth always have to be covered over to ease it’s digestion, the truth is the truth. No one has done more to offend our friends and partners on the world stage than Obama and the democrats. The UK, Israel, even Canada and everyone else that at one time we could count on. John stud up to the corruptions of the UN leaders and members, he made waves, too bad. You want to change the coarse where on, then you need good strong leaders. Isn’t that why Trump won, isn’t Trump like Bolton in his boldness and willing to take actions. George W. Bush assigned John Bolton as our representative to the UN because John was strong and forceful where as Bush was not. Look how the democrats and Obama handle things, look at John Kerry, Hillary Clinton. Are they the type you want?
Another ringing endorsement of John Bolton.
The question about anyone who has made a mistake in the past (nearly everyone except me) is whether they have learned from their mistake.
One mistake in the chess game called the middleeast is that after the neocons had a brilliant move to knock out Sadam those neocons had not thought of the next move in the chess game. They had no plan what to do with the Iraqi army. They had no plan how to do nation-building.
So has Bolton (and others) learned. The next time Bolton (or others) advocates a dramatic action, do they have a plan for the next series of moves in the chess game?
Consider it from the perspective of a great negotiator. A negotiator has several cards in his hand. The other players have several cards in their hand. The great negotiator has to think not only of the first card he plays, and the first card the others play. The great negotiator has to think of how the sequence of cards plays out.
Ha the fact that establishment GOPe, dont want him, makes me want him even more.
RE: FAKE news on wmd to kill 4000 American heroes,
There WERE WMD’s found, Unless Chemical Weapons are not considered WMD’s.
Here’s a New York Times Report several years after the fact:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.