A technological revolution is coming to…everything, obviously, including warfare. We aren’t talking just about smart bombs and armed drones anymore. The future might bring us automated battles fought by robots with artificial intelligence, swarms of micro-drones that can replicate themselves, self-guided bullets, non-lethal weapons (that can be used on political protestors, BTW), particle beam rifles, gene-spliced bioweapons, and other armaments beyond our imagination.
This stuff is so important that in the next two month we will have three topics related to it. First up on Monday is the basics. We will learn about some of the wilder military technologies that are being developed to the extent we can know about such secret stuff; how their availability and employment could change how we get into/avoid wars, fight them, and finish them; and some of the broad ramifications for national defense, international relations, and our safety.
On May 28 we will consider the future of nuclear deterrence in particular, as suggested by James, focusing on whether nuclear war is going to remain as unthinkable as it is today. Finally, on June 28th we bring it all together and also tackle President Trump’ specialty: Brinksmanship and threatening war as a routine tool of negotiating.
Here are the usual discussion questions and optional readings. The reading focus on future gee-wiz weaponry under development and possible implications for war and peace. As you read, think about our basic topic question: Is war about to become too easy to wage? In my opening remarks I will list some of the technologies and some hopefully useful ways to think about some of these dilemmas.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –
- History: How has the world dealt with military technological revolutions in the past? E.g., nuclear weapons, chemical/biological, and earlier? Lessons learned?
- Future war: Which technologies are at issue and how could they make wars easier to start and harder to deter and end? Easier/harder for whom – USA/allies, adversary nations, terrorists and criminals)? What will “war” mean in 20-30 years?
- Implications: Tradeoffs (esp. reducing costs of war vs. lowering its threshold). Implications for deterrence and diplomacy? Ethics/morality.
- Uncertainty: What is the danger of us thinking future wars will be easier and being proven wrong, or vice versa?
- Options: What’s best – Develop capability, arms races, arms control, alliances, prepare the public to live with uncertainty?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Key point: Technological advances never made war unthinkable in the past.
New technologies –
- 8 technologies that are already transforming international security. Recommended.
- 9 amazing military technologies of the future (slides). Recommended
- What is DARPA working on nowadays?
- We may soon deploy armed drones domestically – a civil liberties disaster.
War becoming too easy?
- An expert pleads with us to notice how easy war is becoming and how bad that is. Video 50m.
- The ethics of using robots in war: Short version recommended. Long version but strongly against it.
- Could we ever negotiate a cybersecurity treaty?
No, war will never be easy –
- There are no easy wars in our future, and we should never think it will return.
The top advisor Trump just replaced with John Bolton agrees! Either recommended.
- New tech will mean new vulnerabilities, too, especially dependence on computer networks and space-based assets. Recommended.
- Killer robots could end war and usher in permanent peace.
NEXT WEEK: Do atheists tend to be intolerant?
People have been pining for “another Eisenhower” off and on for decades. As with most historical analogies, the desire for another Eisenhower probably says more about the political views of those pining away for him than it does about our current problems and the type of political leadership that could address them.
Wanting an Ike-like president can mean one or more of several different things, I suppose. It can mean a desire to revive an extinct species: Moderate Republicans, along with a leader that can make the GOP accept the Great Society and its extensions the way Eisenhower accepted the New Deal. Or, maybe it reflects a yearning for a return of the bipartisan consensus politics of the 1950s and a politics of decency and civility. Or, maybe some folks just like the idea of a successful military leader who can knock a few heads together in Washington. a.
Obviously, Eisenhower’s presidency and 1950s politics and culture were not as rosy as some folk think they were. The 1950s were before civil rights revolution was completed and before equal rights for women and LGBT folks were even on the table. The Cold War was at its most dangerous heights. Moreover, unless you have a “great man” view of history, it is not very enlightening to compare one president’s managerial and personal style and to another’s.
However, I think it could be useful to examine two things. First, we can explore how the social and political structures of the Eisenhower era shaped political decisions and constrained the choices that could be made.
Yes, President Trump seems to make decisions more based on the last thing he saw on TV and desires for vengeance against enemies (real and imagined) than on the normal factors that shape presidential behavior. Still, no presidency is about one person even if this one thinks it is. Comparing today’s political and social climate to the one that Eisenhower and other political leaders of the era faced might be instructive for today – and tomorrow, assuming someday American politics returns from the ledge it has crawled out on.
Second, we could discuss the whole idea of consensus-based politics. Is bipartisanship and cooperation even possible anymore, or desirable? Our nation’s politics are so polarized, its problems are so daunting, and its international position so rapidly-weakening that perhaps a return to the kind of cautious incrementalism that consensus politics usually requires may not make much sense anymore. In my opening summary on Monday I will explain this POV a bit more and introduce some possible historical parallels that might make the Eisenhower presidency relevant to our current crisis.
We probably should get into foreign policy a fair amount, too. Yesterday, Trump picked uber-hawk John Bolton to be his national security advisor. An Islamophobic fringe figure who has repeatedly called for war with Iran and North Korea will control the flow of foreign policy information to our knowledge-challenged president. I cannot imagine a better time to talk about Eisenhower, a fervent Cold Warrior president that was also known to exercise “strategic restraint” and left office warning about the over-militarization of foreign policy.
This week’s optional readings include backgrounders on Eisenhower’s presidency and some comparisons of Ike to Trump and Obama. WWID: What would Ike do? Let’s figure it out Monday.
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
His presidency –
Some specifics –
- His famous farewell address was much more than just a warning about the “military-industrial complex.” Read this short speech.
- Ike quietly defeated his era’s most dangerous demagogue: Joe McCarthy. Recommended.
- Ike’s civil rights record.
- Obama was like Ike; he understood the need for “strategic restraint” and did his best work behind the scenes. Recommended.
- Conservative POVs: Conservatives should like Ike. Also, Trump is no Eisenhower and neither was Obama.
NEXT WEEK: Will technology make war too easy?
This topic is just a way to ask two big questions, I think. They are (1) What motivates America’s interaction with the rest of the world, and (2) how much “good” do we really accomplish and for whom (domestically and abroad)?
Conversations on topics like this often focus on the wars we have fought and their moral justification and successes or failures. CivCon’s discussions of war and peace issues tend to enter around the basic Left v. Right cleavage on the morality of those wars and who they are really fought for. To (some but not all) progressives, the U.S. government has been the bad guy in many times and places, mainly because “we the People” in our foreign policy is really “We, the Corporations” or “We, the neoconservative imperialists.” Many (but not all) conservatives seem to think our country’s moral virtue and exceptionalism are beyond questioning and that our national interests are broad, unchanging, and best advanced through violence and threats of violence. Both sides off and on return to an old American tradition: An almost messianic desire to spread our values, both democratic and capitalist.
Civilized Conversation has managed to broaden this stale debate in the past, IMO. Beyond wars and “other “hard power,” we also have dealt with “soft power” issues like trade policy, non-coercive diplomacy, and immigration.
Now, of course, we have to add two new wrinkles brought to us by the Trump Administration. One is a resurgent patriotism (or belligerent nationalism, depending on your POV) that Trump created and/or rode into the oval office. The other is his sharp retreat from global leadership under his campaign slogan “American First.” (We did meetings on both of these. See below.)
So, my idea was that we could go over different POVs on the (1) intentions and (2) results of the biggest chunks of our recent foreign policy, including but not limited to wars and military coercion. I don’t think people have to know much about foreign affairs for this to be a good meeting. To me our topic is really all about who you think the “We” is in “our” relations with the rest of the world.
NEWBIES: Please note that the readings are optional and some are tagged as being more useful than others. I may start reducing the number of readings since I think they scare away new members. What do the rest of you think?
OPTIONAL BACKGROUND READING –
Basic background and related CivCon mtgs –
- ABCs of how US foreign policy gets made. Short.
- 2017 CivCon – What does the USA stand for? Part 1 by DavidG + Part 2 by Ali. Some useful links.
- 2017 CivCon – Has Trump summoned a New American Nationalism?
- 2012 – What is patriotism?
Good guys, bad guys, or neither –
- USA is the good guy when we support a global rule of law.
- …and when we don’t let belief in our own superiority drive what we do. Recommended
- Trump has started a battle for the soul of U.S. foreign policy. Recommended.
- Neither: We should put protecting Americans over reassuring others. Conservative POV (but not neoconservative).
- Video of Obama speech on what USA stands for. (28m).
NEXT WEEK: Would gun control really reduce crime?
Fifty years ago 485,000 American troops were serving in Vietnam, and in November, 1967, alone almost 500 died there (sources 1 2). Since 1968 began our long, cruel exit from that place, we will be inundated with anniversaries over the next few years. Also, many of us saw at least some of the 15-part Ken Burns’ PBS series on the war that ran last month. I thought it would be a good time to discuss an age-old topic: What should we have learned from the Vietnam War, and did we learn it?
Candidates for lesson-hood are many. Off the top of my head, possible ones include (in no particular order ideological or otherwise) the following.
- Don’t take over other countries civil wars.
- Distinguish vital national interests from peripheral ones – and be willing to live with the consequence.
- Don’t abandon an ally after you spend a decade fighting the enemy to a standstill (Congress cut off military aid in 1973).
- Cutting losses beats compounding them forever just to preserve “America credibility.”
- Counter-insurgency is a different kind of warfare – and easy to lose.
- Carpet bombing cities cannot break an enemy’s will.
- Americans can be as brutal in war as anybody else.
- Don’t assume all U.S. adversaries worldwide are united against us (USSR/China/N. Vietnam; Al Qaeda/ISIS/Hezbollah).
- Anti-war protests can – or cannot – stop a war.
- Protests rarely are popular, especially if the most anti-American elements get out in front.
- Military power alone can’t win wars.
- U.S. wars require broad public support or at least “silent majority’s acquiescence.
- Poor Americans shouldn’t bear all the burden of the fighting.
- Huge wars cause huge refugee flows and we need to have a plan.
- The government sometimes tell big, whopping lies.
- The Best and the Brightest often are neither.
- Domino theories are stupid. Or: Sometimes they come true.
- The USA is an imperialist power. Or: No, the Left just thinks we are.
- Journalists reporting war’s ugly details saps public support.
- We shouldn’t let our troops fight with “one hand tied behind their backs.”
- Americans hate to lose so much we create myths when it happens (like one hand behind or stab in the back).
I could list these all night. You probably can, too, since most of us in Civilized Conversation were alive and/or adults during the Vietnam War era and several of us were there. I doubt you need much background material, either. Here are a few timelines and summaries of the conflict, along with some “lessons learned/unlearned” retrospectives. I’m egregiously adding a few readings on the parallels between Vietnam and the wars on terror, Iraq, etc.
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Timelines: Basis timeline major stuff only. More detailed.
- U.S. military:
- Our troops did NOT fight with one hand behind their backs.
- It was a war on civilians. Recommended.
- Lessons learned according to General H.R. McMaster, Trump’s Natl Security advisor. Recommended.
- U.S. anti-war movement – All recommended:
- Ken burns series:
- Conservative POVs:
- Lessons for our current wars:
NEXT WEEK: Understanding the Prosperity Gospel.
Is there a more scary topic for a Halloween eve meeting than this one?
President Trump’s rhetoric on North Korea has been highly irresponsible and reckless. But, it is hard to judge exactly how dangerous the situation is. War is still unlikely based on what I am reading.
But, honestly. Trump has threatened to annihilate North Korea’s civilian population in a written speech before the United Nations. He has pledged to attack merely if its leaders don’t stop verbally threatening us – to start a war over words. He has repeatedly tweeted (!) that the end of diplomacy is near and we should stay tuned for the next exciting chapter. Senator Corker’s words of warning about Trump earlier this week are widely interpreted as a warning specifically about the likelihood of his triggering war (either accidentally or deliberately) with Pyongyang. Regarding this irresponsible and dangerous president’s behavior I’m not sure what there is to say or discuss, other than to be horrified.
And, yet. North Korea is a massive problem that must somehow be managed no matter who is president. No one really knows what to do and all of our options are bad. So, I thought it would be useful to get up to speed on those options and those risks so we can all better understand what is going on.
Fortunately, a lot of excellent commentaries on North Korea have been penned recently, at least in my opinion. Also, in a few weeks President Trump will visit East Asia.
On Monday night I will do a very brief opening update of recent developments and a preview of what experts say to look for in the Trump Asia tour. Then we can vent discuss North Korean policy.
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Panic. Inside North Korea “all paths lead to war.” Recommended.
- Don’t panic. We know deterrence will work on NK because it has worked for decades. Recommended.
- Trump’s policy (or “policy”)
- It’s an even stupider version of George W. Bush’s stupid policy. Recommended.
- Does Trump genuinely want war?
- Detailed discussion of all four major options for dealing with Pyongyang. All are bad but some are much worse than others.
NEXT WEEK: Do we really have a democracy?
Oops. I forgot that “Fair Trade” is the name of a consumer movement that asks people to make ethical choices when buying imported goods. Consumers are encouraged to buy only products that carry the fair trade label indicating they are produced sustainably by companies that pay a living wage, keep safe working conditions, etc. The Fair Trade movement is interesting of course. It’s one small way individuals can make a difference in the world of foreign policies few of us have any input in fashioning, and the movement helps to build awareness of global poverty and how people in rich countries can contribute to it (even though in the broadest sense globalization has reduced poverty in developing nations).
I had in mind something more ambitious. How “fair” is free trade to, well, to Americans? The consensus in favor of free trade has collapsed. President Trump owes his election to pandering to resentments of all sorts, of course. But anger over “unfair” trade agreements allegedly foisted on pitifully-led Americans by wily foreigners was a major theme of his rage-filled campaign. It resonated because Republican voters are actually more hostile to free trade than Democratic voters – probably because blue cities benefit more from globalization than redder areas. Yet, many Democrats, too, are abandoning free trade, as Bernie Sanders’s near-success and Hillary Clinton’s reversal on the Trans-Pacific Partnership pact attest.
Why do so many Americans believe trade and globalization are unfair? Some dumb reasons, sure. But, I think the links below finger a very legitimate reasons: Modern trade agreements go far beyond simply knocking down barriers to increased imports and exports. They have sought to rewrite some of the basic rules of business and commerce to harmonize them across countries, areas of policy that used to be the sole province of national governments. Progressives sometimes exaggerate the extent of this, IMO. But, it’s real, and a big change in how the now highly-integrated global economy is managed. More is at stake than freer trade.
This notion and other reasons why free trade allegedly has turned against us are highly-disputed. It’s complicated and not just a left-right thing. Trump’s reality-free trade rhetoric doesn’t help the debate, nor did Bernie’s big foreign policy vision speech yesterday that ignored trade. Still, I think we can carve off a few digestible chunks of the controversy over the fairness of free trade and turn the chewing into an informative meeting. Maybe we could focus on these questions a bit.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –
- Consumer movement: What is buying Fair Trade + where can I get more info?
- Trade v. convergence: How much have global trade rules gone beyond freeing trade towards harmonizing economic regulation in general?
- Quo bene? Why was this done? Whose interests were served? Elites/big biz? Doesn’t trade help the public interest via faster growth, spurs innovation, etc.?
- Quo screwed? Who has been harmed? What evidence it was due to (1) trade and (2) trade agreements?
- Alternatives: IF trade has turned against interests of U.S. public and/or democratic accountability, now what? Renegotiate them, one by one (Trump)? Do nothing/double down (GOP)? Attach labor and enviro standards (some libs)? Strengthen edu/training + social insurance/safety net (other libs)?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING – Fewer this week, but longer ones.
- The free trade consensus is dead (2015 article).
- It should be (progressives):
- How to make globalization work for all Americans. Or try this shorter one. Either.
- Where it all went wrong and what Trump gets wrong. [Duplicate 2nd link deleted]
- Basic economic regulations does not belong in trade deals. Hard, but key arguments.
- Wrong. Free trade worked and still works:
NEXT WEEK: Social security reform.
American discomfort with its relationship with Saudi Arabia has been growing for many years. It’s not just a result of 9/11. Human rights, democracy promotion, and gender equality play larger roles in U.S. foreign policy than they used to do. The Arab Spring, which the Saudi regime fiercely opposed, spurred at least a faint hope that the Middle East could one day get long without a brutal theocracy and exporter of radical ideology at its center.
Yet, the same obstacles to downgrading our de facto Saudi alliance that have led every president since FDR to rely on it. Saudi Arabia is the only big oil producer with enough reserves and spare refining capacity to maintain supplies to the West and keep prices from fluctuating wildly. The House of Saud has been a pro-American (in its policies, if not in rhetoric or support for radicals) anchor of stability in a troubled Middle East. This has been especially true since 1979 when the revolutionaries toppled our only big secular Arab ally, the Shah of Iran; and it’s been reinforced recently as Bush/Cheney’s hope to install a stable pro-Western regime in Iraq turned to ashes. Also, despite its long-time support for radicalism, the Saudi government has been relatively tolerant of Israel in recent years, hostile to Iran, and since 9/11 willing to help us fight Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.
Now comes President Donald Trump. As they say in the Middle East, oy, vey.
It is very hard to know where Trump stands on most any foreign policy issue or how long he will stand there. But, so far Trump appears to be doubling down on Saudi Arabia. As the articles below explain, Trump’s first foreign trip was to Saudi Arabia. They lavished Trump with praise, awards, and gifts, and as a result he appears to have green lit the Kingdom’s blockade of one neighbor (Qatar) and continued savage war against another (Yemen). Trump also reportedly really, really wants to abrogate the nuclear treaty with Iran, which the Saudi government absolutely would love since it is locked in a virtual Cold War with Tehran and desires our support.
I think all of this leaves us with a few basic questions and partial answers, such as…
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –
- What major interests do we have in common and not in common with the Saudi government?
- Has that changed recently? What is Saudi govt trying to accomplish domestically and abroad? Is it achievable? Risky? Good for us?
- What is Trump doing? It is a coherent policy shift or more of a whim?
- Will these changes hold; i.e., can a president fundamentally change the U.S.-Saudi relationship, or do its roots run deeper?
- How, specifically, could we downgrade the U.S.-Saudi relationship? Range of possible consequences, including Riyadh’s and others’ responses.
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Backgrounder on U.S.-Saudi relations.
- Our relationship is based on three assumptions, all of which (for now) still hold.
- No, Trump should rethink it. Recommended but long.
- His embarrassing visit to Saudi Arabia. Good Lord.
- The Saudis now hope to reinforce their influence, target: Iran.
- Trump’s unquestioning support for that plan has put the Middle East on the brink of disaster. Either.
- What are our options overall? Recommended.
- [Update: The new Saudi leader is a bumbling fool; Trump should (but isn’t) treating him like one.]
After Trump –
- U.S.-Saudi relationship will survive Trump because for better or worse we’re stuck with each other.
NEXT WEEK: Does Big Money really control U.S. politics?
As most of you know, U.S. foreign aid is one of the least understood – and despised — government endeavors. Most people wildly exaggerate how much we spend. Most people think foreign aid is about 25%- 30% or more of the federal budget. The real figure is one percent, and more than one-third of that is security assistance, not economic aid.
There are also lots and lots of misconceptions and anachronisms in public perceptions of where the money goes and for what purposes. Forget sacks of grain for starving Ethiopians and well-digging in quaint little villages. We still do that. But American developmental assistance abroad is much more sophisticated and strategic than it used to be. We help to improve education, energy and food security, financial stability, regulatory regimes, gender equality, and much more. We also try to coordinate our assistance worldwide development goals, other countries’ aid, and private and non-profit sector developmental aid. Which countries receive the lion’s share of aid might surprise you, too
Yet, surely foreign aid’s small size and public ignorance about it do not by themselves justify the aid or prove that it works, for us or the recipients. Measuring success can be tricky and depends on the objectives, the performance measure, the available data – and the eye of the beholder. All of these were thorny issues back when I followed development issues slightly closely a few decades ago. I am looking forward to learning what’s new in measuring results. (I know there is now one office that coordinates our foreign aid.)
Since this is one of those some-details-needed topics I will open our meeting with a brief tutorial on (1) what we spend our foreign aid money on and (2) what the big goals are. Here are the questions I will focus on and some background readings.
A new schedule for June – Sept will be available.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –
- What: What does the USG spend its foreign aid funds on? Who spends it, doing what, and in which countries?
- Why: Goals, objectives, strategies.
- Context: How does our foreign aid fit in with other countries’, UN/World Bank/other IGOs, and private sector aid?
- Benefits: How do they measure success? Benefits to recipient countries. Benefits to USA including strategic/political. Which aid is vital versus elective v. obsolete/harmful?
- Alternatives to aid: Aid v. trade. Private charity and its limits. Etc.
- Public support and future: Why is foreign aid so unpopular? Does/should it matter? Will the need for it ever fade away?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Our foreign aid budget, visualized. How much, for what, and where? Recommended.
- Our foreign military aid, visualized.
- U.S. foreign aid:
- Evaluating success can be comically obtuse and bureaucratic. If you understand any of this you’re hired.
- Global effort: Progress made on the “Millennium Development Goals.” Important.
NEXT WEEK: Lessons of the Six Day War, 50 years later.
The chaos of the first 5 weeks of the Trump Administration’s foreign policy can’t continue indefinitely, can it?
It absolutely could, and for all the reasons people cite. Trump knows little about the world and nothing at all about U.S. foreign policy and he doesn’t seem inclined to learn. Key foreign affairs agencies like the State Department and the intelligence agencies are unstaffed and/or being marginalized. Trump keeps insulting foreign governments and contradicting long-established U.S. foreign policy positions. Then there’s the Russian influence scandal, his business conflicts of interest, etc. Oy.
Or, maybe this won’t happen. After a shakeout period we might end up with a more or less conventional and at least minimally stable conservative Republican foreign policy. For good or ill. I think Trump’s instincts on foreign affairs – a bellicose nationalism – are a lot closer to today’s “centrist” GOP foreign policy canon than a lot of people are willing to admit. But YMMV. Alternatively, maybe U.S. foreign policy is so strongly based on eternal and unchanging national interests (also for good or ill) that even Trump and his crew could not fundamentally alter it.
Still, I think it’s entirely appropriate to ask whether U.S. global leadership is at risk going forward, for two reasons. First, chaos aside Trump has proposed some real roll-the-dice policy stuff. I will go over some of his big ideas in my little opening presentation on Monday. Maybe U.S. foreign policy needed shaking up and/or a more nakedly self-interested and transactional approach. But these proposals are huge departures from 60 years of post-WWII consensus, and a lot of people are worried they could cause or accelerate a decline in U.S. influence.
Worse, some of Trump’s most trusted advisors and perhaps Trump himself may have a genuinely radical vision for America’s global role. Steve Bannon, in particular, has been described as seeking a kind of global alliance of far right-wing Western political parties and governments. Call it “White Internationalism” united to oppose our “true” enemies, like China and Islam. That’s not going to happen, of course. But even trying to bring it about could quickly pole-axe trust in American leadership.
Second, the global system and our position at the apex of it were deemed fragile long before Donald Trump decided he would look good as president. We have talked before about the possibility of declining U.S. global influence and whether the entire 60 year-old global liberal democratic order that is at risk. So, we have some good substance to cover. Trump has in some ways enunciated a coherent worldview, plus we can revisit the declinism debate in light of our new chief executive.
Here are the usual broad discussion questions and some background readings.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –
- Decline? Was a less U.S.-centric world order emerging before Trump’s rise? Why?
–> Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
–> What should we have been doing to stop it or shape it?
- Trump: How does he see our international problems and what solutions did he promise?
–> What vision and theory of power are behind them?
–> How accurate and how radical is it? à How committed/flexible is he on this stuff?
- Reaction: Will Congress, the bureaucracy, and the public support Trump’s ideas? How will the world react: Allies + adversaries?
- Results: What’s likely to be happen? Will transnational alliances/loyalties be remixed? Will global problems be neglected?
–> How will we know if U.S. leadership is less respected and our power reduced?
–> Any benefits to us from this?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
Was global order at risk before Trump?
- Yep, it’s dying.
Trump’s foreign policy vision –
- A 19th century foreign policy. Recommended.
- One that’s allied with and identical to those of the European far right-wing. Recommended.
- An “Alpha Male foreign policy.”
- Or: A more realistic and pro-American foreign policy. Semi pro-Trump POV.
Its Consequences –
- It will end the American century. Recommended.
- “The Return of Self-help.” Other nations will have to rely more on themselves and each other. Recommended.
- Trump’s budget would gut funds that support U.S. soft power, making war more likely. (h/t Aaron)
- Will Trump blunder us into a major war?
Alternatives beyond the status quo ante –
- Rebuild Americans’ trust in foreign policy by making it work for them.
NEXT WEEK: Economism: The misuses of “pop economics.”