The board had settled on another candidate for the third winner of the award when this article from former US Ambassador to NATO, Robert Hunter, came in and produced a hands down winner.
In one article, the entire Inside the Beltway “high priesthood” was brilliantly characterized, by one of their own.
“Washington, DC, our nation’s capital and the center of governmental angst in fair times and foul, is going through its most profound trauma in years, a collective PTSD.
For most of Washington’s political class, even on the Republican side of the aisle that divides the city, “this wasn’t supposed to happen.”
Hillary Clinton was to be president and Donald Trump an also-ran, a showman who provided entertainment, though all-too-often holding up a mirror to the foibles and hypocrisies of those who do politics for a living.
But here we are.”
Well exactly where are we?
Being cast aside is the high priesthood:
“The foreign policy establishment, most of whose members will now be excluded from power and influence, deprived of their God-given right to set the nation’s agenda abroad and determine its directions.”
So cast adrift of the proper teachings, Donald Trump, which according to Hunter, was characterized by the Main Stream Media as a second-rate Elmer Gantry, has nominated the head of Exxon as the next Secretary of State.
But he will not be confirmed according to Hunter because of his close ties to Russia and his general lack of proper background for the job.
Mr. Tillerson’s nomination elides into the other question that is most pertinent, now: the allegations of Russian meddling in our election campaign, whether accurately portrayed or inflated in their impact (which can never be truly assessed).
At one level, Mr. Tillerson is a stand-in for Mr. Trump, who has spoken so often of wanting to create a more positive relationship with Russia and Mr. Putin.
What that would in fact mean is anyone’s guess–most likely Trump himself does not yet know.
There is some risk that, in seeking both to “reach a deal” and to be different (and more effective) that President Obama, President Trump might compromise objectively-important interests–both America’s and others’.
But it is easier for opponents of any change in U.S. policy toward Russia to challenge a nominee for a cabinet post than to take on the president, while sending the same “message.”
Unfortunately, Putin’s actions disrupted the strategic direction which President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry had in mind.
Putin is so 19th Century, as Secretary Kerry provided strategic guidance to the nation.
The new U.S. president could find himself crippled in trying to work out the kind of relationship with Russia that President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry would have liked to achieve but could not–in major part because of Russian behavior, but also because of hardening attitudes here, including old Cold War overtones, that exist far more in the foreign policy establishment than in the country at large.
We could look back and look at the overreach of the 1990s when the European Union and the Clinton Administration and then the Administration of George W. Bush pushed for the broad inclusion of Eastern Europe into the European Union and into NATO without any commensurate growth in growth in the case of the EU, nor in defense resources for the significantly expanded defense perimeter of NATO.
What impact do those actions have now on Russia and the way ahead with regard to European security?
The election of a President which has a show me attitude towards the expansion of NATO is more than simply about what to do about Putin.
It is about the shape of Europe over the next decade as the Euro crisis, the Brexit, and the immigration implosion take a full impact on the national and European institutions.
The team that Trump is putting together is more likely than one populated from the keepers of the foreign policy flame to address the critical issues facing the strategic tsunami which is going on with or without Trump.
Leave a Reply