The Good. The Bad. The Asinine.

Trump, the Iran Nuclear Deal, and Beyond…

Trump Iran Nuclear Deal

The Iran Nuclear Deal, or, to give it its proper name, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), has been described by President Trump as “the worst deal ever negotiated”, and likely to cause a “nuclear holocaust”. Throughout the course of his campaign, Trump made repeated references to the JCPOA, telling anyone who would listen that the deal was a “joke”, and that he intended to re-negotiate, revising key provisions, lengthening time limits and generally changing the current plan into a kind of extended penance. As always with President Trump, there is some doubt as to how much, if any, of what he’s said is meant to be taken seriously, but let’s do our best.

Trump has repeatedly claimed that the JCPOA contains no provisions for checking Potential Military Applications (PMA), no safeguards to prevent Iranian weapons development now or into the future, and that it virtually guarantees a nuclear armed Iran within fifteen years, followed shortly by a nuclear holocaust. Unsurprisingly, none of these claims is true.

Let’s first look at the provisions of the plan. PMAs were a sticking point during negotiations, and it became apparent to even the casual observer that the Iranians, beyond a natural unwillingness to share their secrets, were also unclear as to the exact extent of their secret research programs. In the UNCLAS version, very little is said about PMA, but it is nevertheless apparent from various textual clues that the issue was dealt with. Similarly, the provisions with regard to intrusive inspection, the closure of various pathways to weaponisation (enrichment and plutonium), and various other strictures, all point to an agreement which is perfectly competent to achieve its stated aim: a temporary freeze of Iran’s progress towards nuclear weaponry. President Trump, however, does not see it that way. In President Trump’s view, Iran is a “bad” and “terrorist” state, needing to be kept at all times under the mailed fist of US hard power. It’s difficult to see, given this view, how any deal could have struck him as satisfactory.

Hassan Rouhani Iran Nuclear Deal

Hassan Rouhani, unique amongst Iranian presidents for being more stable than his US counterpart

Now for the safeguards designed to prevent Iranian weaponisation of its nuclear program which, according to Trump, do not exist. Firstly, there’s provisions for inspection, facilities re-purposing from high level enrichment and Plutonium manufacture to power generation, technology, replacement programs for cycling out 20% enriched uranium, the list goes on… And Iran has been pathetically eager to comply. Completion of each action plan has been tagged to the lifting of sanctions and, more importantly, the release of the associated funds. The deal, from Iran’s point of view, is easy to understand. In exchange for restored oil wealth, access to global markets, normalisation of trade and other relations, and a place at the negotiating table, they take a fifteen year halt in a nuclear weapons program which took twenty years to produce next to nothing, and which isolated them so badly that one of their key trading partners was North Korea. President Trump’s belligerent paranoia aside, it’s difficult to see a situation where Iran voluntarily breaks the deal. There’s too much to gain, and at such little cost. And while it is true that Iran could restart weaponisation post agreement, there’s little reason to expect this. A large part of the agreement is clearly designed to end Iran’s isolation – a key factor in their clandestine rush for the bomb.

Trump Iran Nuclear Deal

Trump labelled Iran a ‘terrorist state’ when addressing AIPAC

It’s axiomatic, though, that Christian conservatives cannot see any future in the Middle East without Israel, heavily force-multiplied by the US, maintaining military superiority. A rehabilitated Iran would necessarily change the dynamic. Iran is a natural hegemon – it has ample resources, an educated and numerous populace, access to the sea and a position of key strategic importance. All it really lacks is money. The deal itself, being a UN deal brokered by P5+1, is not US property. Energy hungry P5+1 members Russia and China have a strong interest in its success, as does the UK, who hopes to profit from expanding G/O exploration.

Now that Trump has finished appeasing the GOP’s Zionist donors, the time is ripe for one of his trademark backflips. It’s far from clear whether he can kill the deal (I’d say he can’t), but he is easily capable of killing relations with Iran. Given the likely interventionism of a Trump administration, this would be a critical mistake. Iran has a long (albeit covert) history of co-operation with the USA, and has been a key collaborator in US campaigns in the Middle East. Iranian support, or at least non-aggression, is vital to any operation in Syria, Afghanistan or Iraq. Additionally, Iran has reach and effectiveness far out of proportion with its military power, thanks to decades of investment in power projection by paramilitary and covert proxies. If President Trump really intends to establish safe zones in Syria, escalate the campaign against IS, and generally re-establish US hegemony in the Middle East, all this will be much easier with Iran’s cooperation and assistance. This is a problem for the near future, of course. In the meantime, President Trump should work on gaining better control of his public utterances before the laws of consequence come into proper effect.

One Nation’s False ‘Liberalisation’

Shan Ju Lin One Nation

Shan Ju Lin, One Nation’s Asian candidate for some seat in Queensland I don’t care about and have never heard of, has been something of a propaganda double-whammy for Ms Hanson’s erratic populist juggernaut. Not only did the visible fact of her ‘non-whiteness’ seemingly put to bed the idea of the party’s racism, her subsequent sacking for making ‘anti-gay’ comments must surely be used by the pointy-headed side of politics as ‘proof’ that One Nation is also free of other forms of bigotry. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let’s tackle the racism first. Pauline recently embarked on a dictionary-fuelled rant on the meaning of the word ‘racist’, helpfully providing us with a disingenuously monolithic definition, possibly as an exercise in clever sophistry, but more probably as a function of her incompetence with the English language. The fact of the matter is that there are many shades of meaning involved in racism which cannot necessarily be found in a dictionary. Anyone looking for a full appreciation of the term need only perform a few more clicks in Google to discover that ‘racism’ also covers Hanson’s obvious and clearly stated positions of forced assimilation in pursuit of some mythical Australian monoculture. One Nation is racist not because it disdains skin colour or point of origin, but because of its much more insidious and dangerous bigotry directed at other ways of thinking and being – in essence, its intolerance of the existence or even influence of other cultures. In many ways, this is more purely hateful than a simple aversion to black and yellow people, in that it’s more deeply considered, and therefore more disgustingly ungenerous and narrow-minded. So really, the fact of Shan Ju Lin’s heritage is irrelevant – her deep seated and militant intolerance towards immigrants of every kind, and her insistence on dividing them into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ camps on grounds which are frankly insane, reaffirm rather than contradict the bigotry which lies at the heart of the party.

And then there’s the curious case for dismissal of homophobia. This should emphatically not be seen as evidence that Pauline Hanson is in favour of gay rights. Shan Ju Lin herself stated that she issued the Tweets because One Nation had “no policy” with regard to marriage equality or LGBTI rights beyond a vague declaration of support for a plebiscite on marriage equality. No, what we’re seeing here is nothing more than a beleaguered chief of staff trying desperately to hold on to control of the party’s narrative. The recent farcical goings on with Rod Culleton, the persistent insanity of Malcolm Roberts and Pauline’s own unfortunate delusional belief in her ability to speak comprehensibly have seriously eroded any capacity for positive messaging. This is clearly a party engaged in frantic damage control in order to maintain whatever vestiges of credibility which remain to them before they field another bunch of whackos, this time for the House of Reps.

And, in true One Nation style, they are going about this by weeding out crazies, oblivious to the starkly obvious fact that a One Nation shorn of lunatics will be a party without a single, solitary member.

The Australian Christian Lobby’s Delusions of Adequacy

Australian Christian Lobby

This is the ACL’s idea of an ‘argument’. Note the complete absence of logic of any kind.

The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) is a frustrating organisation, not least because of its militant parochialism and refusal to accept that positions based on a combination of Christian revanchism and bigotry are, in fact, revanchist and bigoted. Its tendency to bleat out an utterly fabricated narrative of persecution, its insistence on blaming some amorphous ‘left wing media conspiracy’ for reverses generally caused by its own media incompetence, and its startling inability to pursue or even to form any kind of logically coherent argument are all extremely annoying. And Lyle Shelton, their managing director, is the kind of attention-seeking, self-pitying, incompetently grandiloquent noisemaker who makes the fists of all right-thinking folk become seriously itchy.

So, given just how annoying they are, it’s not hard to understand why someone blowing up a van in their carpark could immediately be put down to a targeted attack. I myself thought it highly probable, given how I feel every time Shelton opens his stupid gob or mashes ineffectually at his keyboard. And I wasn’t alone in this. There are huge sections of the voting public who apparently take ghoulish glee in attributing any and every act of non-domestic violence to Muslim terrorism or Muslim immigration or Muslims in general, possibly because a narrative as inherently irrational as Islamophobia requires quite a lot of fodder to sustain. Within twenty minutes of the first run of the the story, thousands of comments claiming that this was definitely the work of Islamic State and that the leftard libtard media was deliberately suppressing any mention of this, had engulfed certain pointy-headed and ill-spelled corners of the internet. Incontrovertible, iron-clad arguments like: “It was a quiet area, so it must have been a terrorist attack” were helpfully formulated, presumably to assist the police in their investigation, and not to muddy the waters with irrational reactionism. Quite a valuable contribution given that the poor, helpless counter-terrorism and  security experts of the world tend to be stuck with the idea that mass casualty attacks are generally conducted in busy areas at busy times of day. In order to cause mass casualties. Such narrow, blinkered thinking was obviously much enriched by the public’s insightful contributions.

In any case, during the initial phase of this story, the ACL actually had my sympathies. It doesn’t matter how mendacious, petty, bigoted or deluded one’s beliefs are – no law abiding organisation deserves to be the target of political violence. Shelton’s initial Twitterings were mostly generous and politic, though his comment, “hard to believe this could happen in Australia” sounded an ominous warning of the stupidity to come. And my word did he deliver. It appears that in the wake of the explosion, his first and admirable priority was to see to the welfare of his staff, which meant cutting short his holiday and returning to Canberra. In view of the fact that the building was empty at the time, and that none of his staff were injured or killed or, presumably, present at the time, this seemed a little odd. But then, if someone blows up the front of your building, it makes sense that you should repair immediately to the scene. It appears, however, that upon his return he did little other than stand in front of cameras and say stupid things stupidly to the media.

Australian Christian Lobby

Lyle Shelton, proclaiming his organisation’s suspect martyrdom.

By the end of the day, the ground was laid out as follows. The Canberra police had interviewed the suspect, who was unknown to police, and therefore presumably to domestic intelligence, and who said that his sole aim was to “blow myself up”. This, and the host of other factors militating against the interpretation of this event as an attempted mass casualty attack led the police to conclude that there was “no ideological or political motive” behind the explosion. Shelton, of course, wasn’t at all happy about this, and by evening he had proclaimed that the police had been too quick to jump to conclusions, jumped himself to the conclusion that the ACL was the victim of a terror attack and blamed the Greens and other parliamentarians for inciting anti-Christian terrorism by using the word ‘bigot’ to describe his bigoted views.

And then, of course, the story faded from view. This is partly because the only sources of credible information are a tight-lipped police command and a man with burns to 75% of his body, but mostly because the ACL is basically not all that important. Sure, it’s loud in its claims to represent the Christian community, but there isn’t any real evidence that it does. Its base, purportedly largely made up of Pentecostal and non-conformist churches, does not in fact support its views on marriage equality. Its measurable impact on elections is negligible to non-existent. To an informed observer, the ACL’s principle role is to be trotted out in front of the cameras whenever journalists want to provide the appearance of balance by padding out a panel with a talking head from the lunatic Christian right. And this represents, for me, the single most frustrating thing about the ACL – their persistent and unfounded delusions of adequacy. On no level do they actually contribute in any meaningful way to the debate on any issue, but their notoriety and fatuous self importance means that they have a profile which is all out of proportion to their relevance.

So, in the unlikely event that there’s anyone out there who actually is planning an attack on the ACL, I would urge you to reconsider. Not only would such an action be illegal, immoral and inhuman, it would also be of material assistance in backing their delusional narrative of persecution. They’re just not important enough to attack. In fact, I’m convinced that they’re not even important enough to respond to. Like every other screaming toddler, I firmly believe that the best tactic by far is to simply ignore them.

Wargaming a Trump Doomsday Part 3 – General Stupidity

Donald Trump

It’s very difficult to get away from the fact that Donald Trump is basically a fool. In this context, I’m using the word ‘fool’ in its mediaeval sense – a clown. For reasons which appear to be a combination of pragmatism and narcissism, Trump has spent most of his public life being a buffoon, presumably to attract our attention – to ‘raise his profile’, to use the euphemistic parlance of the professional vanity vendors of public relations.

While this may be deeply distasteful, it isn’t really problematic – one can always choose to ignore a fool – until that fool becomes POTUS. The inescapable fact of presidential office is that statements emanating from it have immediate and complex agency, being capable of generating effects via not just their overt meanings, but also through their various implications and substrata of meaning. In other words, stuff the president says matters, because stuff he says makes other stuff happen.

Here, in all its glory, is the single biggest threat represented by Trump, namely, that he might almost have been purpose built to accidentally bring about the end of the world as we know it. I haven’t done the maths, but I suspect that the scope for unintended consequences grows exponentially the less clear one’s actual intentions are. And I think it’s fair to say that nobody has any real idea of what Trump actually intends to do.

There’s a few possible reasons for this. I don’t intend to argue one of the things I suspect – that Trump’s inscrutability is at least partially due to the fact the has no clear idea of his own intentions beyond the barely coherent aspirational slogans he’s been bandying, qualifying and withdrawing. I’m leaving that one alone simply because I neither know the man nor possess the gift of telepathy. But one reason above all stands out as clear cause for the world’s current mystification when it comes to the president elect’s intentions: the fact that it’s basically impossible to derive precise meaning from anything he says.

I acknowledge that much of the media has not so much failed to understand Trump as they have refused to (viz. the ‘bigly’ controversy), either through distaste, disgust or just plain snobbery. I think, however, that this has only been a small part of the problem. The biggest problem with the way Trump talks is that a life spent fulfilling the dual roles of cameo clown and snake-oil merchant means that he has spent most of his time on Earth using language to obscure rather than elucidate meaning. This is especially dangerous given that, in the Machiavellian world of statecraft, it is a truism to state that uncertainty is a catalyst for violence.

Let’s take the Middle East as a prime example. This is a complex and explosive set of situations, and the outlook for a Trump presidency is not encouraging given the zen-like, mutually contradictory positions which the president elect has proclaimed on Twitter. A careful analysis of his simultaneous wish to disengage US troops from foreign conflicts and resolve the Middle East (which he apparently views as a monolithic or unitary single situation) through overwhelming force yields exactly bupkis. Nobody has any idea what he is going to do. And given that the US is militarily capable of anything up to and including ending all civilisation as we know it, the stakes are high, and it is less than helpful to create a situation in which the players are competing blindfolded.

Trump is an uncertainty factory. In business, it’s sometimes a very good idea to obscure your motives and intentions. One of the few moments of clarity we’ve had so far is the realisation that this is very much the game he is playing with China – he wishes to keep China off-balance by obscuring his true position on ‘One China’, which is clearly a negotiating gambit. This model of proceeding may be excellent for the boardroom, but its implications for the summit table are potentially disastrous. State and non-state actors, when presented with a combination of existential threat and deep uncertainty, tend to react with spectacular force. And when statements coming out of the president’s mouth are not only mutually but internally contradictory, it’s difficult to imagine a situation imbued with greater uncertainty.

There’s also the fact that his administration picks don’t follow any discernible pattern. While it’s generally seen as a positive to build an administration with diverse viewpoints, it’s not usual to build one with individuals whose views are mutually and absolutely irreconcilable. This makes the drift and trend of the future administration impossible to predict or even satisfactorily analyse. This might be fine for the punters, who don’t necessarily value decisions produced by actual thought, but it’s potentially catastrophic at a higher level, where most decisions are made by strategic thinkers of one sort or another.

This, in my opinion, is the real threat. There’s not much irreversible harm any POTUS can intentionally do in four or eight years – such is the robustness of the US system. But the scope for accidental harm is literally apocalyptic. The single biggest danger, to my mind, is that the world won’t end with a whimper, but with an accidental bang caused by an inarticulate, incompetent buffoon tapping away at his smartphone at two in the morning.

Wargaming A Trump Doomsday Part 2 – China

Trump and China

PLA-N Frigate Sanya in Cambodia [Reuters]

The US relationship with China has been problematic for as long as it’s existed. From colonial exploiter to the current tetchy marriage of convenience, there have been periods of freeze, thaw and warfare of most varieties – cold, hot, proxy and direct. The current relationship is fraught with difficulty and complexity. China’s fundamental social and political values are not just different to the USA’s, they’re almost entirely irreconcilable. Add to this a worrying degree of economic co-dependence,  and it’s easy to get the idea that the only thing keeping China and the US from war is the liberalist international order, of which Trump and his advisers appear to be so contemptuous. And from there is but a short step to the left wing screamsheets’ confident prediction that President Trump will inevitably propel us into catastrophic global warfare.

But this isn’t really the case. China has arguably attracted more printed falsehood than any other nation apart, perhaps, from the ancient Sumerians. This is due, in part, to the exigencies of propaganda requirements over the ages, but I think that what it mainly indicates is a Western world which has never really fully understood China, its aims or its place in the world. There is much more than the liberalist international order keeping China from war with the West. There are many, many factors, but the two which I feel to be most important are:

  1. They are not ready;
  2. They are not willing.

China does not have a modern military force, it has a rapidly (and this is a very relative adverb) modernising one. China is also not an expansionist power. The rights which they have been attempting to arrogate to themselves do not represent new aspirational boundaries, but old, revanchist ones. China’s number one priority has remained unchanged for hundreds of years – unity. China’s ruling powers have always been aware that to keep their disparate and often quite discontented empire (yes, it’s an empire) together, its peoples need to be convinced that they are under an invincibly strong government which is able to provide prosperity. Thus, China’s apparent aggression, assertiveness, or whatever you wish to call it. Some of it can be accounted for by their mission to restore themselves to pre or early Manchu boundaries, and the rest is for home consumption.

So, after that little primer on China, how exactly can President Trump push this self-obsessed, bought and sold, internally paranoid power to a state where it actually looks belligerently at something other than itself? As it turns out, there are really only a couple of apocalyptic touchpoints. Sure, Trump can severely degrade any diplomatic relationship just by being himself, but the only real doomsday scenario here is war – be it conventional, economic, or a delightful mix of the two.

Probably the most likely of these is a trade war. Trump’s declared trade and economic policies have worrying (for China) overtones of protectionism. There are a few ways in which Trump could attempt to reinvigorate the USA’s manufacturing sector (assuming he intends to pursue this, and that’s a big assumption), and the most direct and obvious one is to strangle foreign imports with tariffs and other protectionist measures. This will seriously impact a nation like China and the knock on effect is most likely to be a sort of price war in which both economies will attempt to undercut each other, both in each other’s markets and across the world. This is an extremely worrying scenario, being likely to cause great pain and suffering and, if pushed far enough, history tells us that this can lead to war. Having said that, it’s not all that likely. Not only is it unlikely that Trump will actually embark on a fully fledged and immediate program of protectionism, China will also do everything in its power to prevent a trade war. Leading Chinese academics and commentators, who generally speak for the state, are already making multiple overtures to the Trump administration on this front. Articles, think-tank pieces and a raft of other media are being co-opted to sell Trump the message: “Let’s use our combined market power to make both our nations great again.” I find it highly unlikely when given conciliatory offers of favourable trade terms in exchange for trade guarantees, that any Trump administration will ignore these and try to push on without actually working China. Especially considering that the only possible outcome of a trade war between these two is that they will both lose. Trump’s gaggle of bankers and corporate raiders know this very well indeed, no matter how tough his sinophobic administration pick likes to talk.

And then there’s Taiwan. The whole world knows, by now, the story of the infamous phone call. What I don’t think most of the world understands is what it actually meant. We have two competing narratives here: the left sells the story that incompetent Trump impulsively took the Taiwanese call, while the right says it was months in the planning. The likelihood is that neither of these stories is true, but in the end, I don’t think it really matters. Short of official recognition of Taiwan, there’s very little to suggest that the status quo is receiving anything more than a bit of a shake. It’s pretty clear that Trump is playing a game of brinksmanship here. He wishes, with largely meaningless gestures, to assert US credibility on cultural and political issues. This is apparent in his support for Taiwan and Hong Kong. The reality of his support, though, is that apart from that element which is clearly for home consumption, it’s almost certainly a gambit. There are some tough negotiations ahead on a number of issues if Trump is to make even token efforts to satisfy his base, and it’s apparent that he’s counting his chips and letting the other players know he has them.

To the extent that it’s possible to determine the actual intentions of a more or less inarticulate demagogue, I think the most sensible analysis here is that what we’re looking at is not so much the precursor to an apocalypse as it is an adjustment back to an older version of the USA. Once again, when it comes to China, Trump would have to be spectacularly unlucky to trigger doomsday in this case, as China neither wants nor needs a direct confrontation and will work feverishly to prevent one.

Turkey, Russia, Murder and Islam

Assassination of Russian Ambassador

Most of us are aware by now that the Russian Ambassador to Turkey has been shot dead by a 22 year old Turkish policeman who the Turkish regime is tentatively linking to Fethullah Gulen, the figure who was also blamed for the abortive military coup earlier in the year and who basically acts as Turkey’s ‘Goldstein’ a la 1984. The screamsheets (my new name for all media, shamelessly stolen from Cyberpunk) have done their usual best to spread despondency and panic, and the conspiracy theorists can’t be far behind. I’d like to get in before them and try to break down what this attack actually means.

Firstly, we need to understand a little bit about what’s happening in Turkey at the moment. A full situational appreciation would take thousands of words, but a brief, somewhat simplistic rendering should be sufficient for our purposes here. In very crude terms, Turkey is conflicted between secular nationhood and Islamist regional hegemony. Erdogan, authoritarian, populist and Islamist, is attempting to undo, prick by prick, the grand experiment in secular nationhood kicked off by Ataturk. His consistent tendency has been to expand the powers of the presidency, nudge state law closer to Sharia, and to position Turkey as a regional hegemon at the very least. Many suspect that he seeks imperial power, with his detractors comparing his regime to the Ottoman Empire.

These are big changes which strike at the core of Turkey’s revivified vision of itself in the wake of its humiliation at the end of WWI. This has led to a nation which is sharply divided. There are many splinters and factions, but two broad schools of thought can be identified – populist, interventionist, Islamist and expansionist on the one hand; middle class, secular, republican and non-interventionist on the other. Erdogan’s straw man opponent, one time ally Fethullah Gulen, is almost exactly analogous to Trotsky – hounded out of the USSR and subsequently blamed for every riot, production shortfall or particularly nasty winter. Gulen believes in interfaith dialogue, secular government and science – basically, Ataturk’s westernising, secularising vision. He’s also vehemently opposed to Turkey’s support of elements seeking to overthrow Bashar al Assad. It’s this last belief, loudly proclaimed from Gulen’s exile in the USA, which conveniently allows the Erdogan regime to pin this assassination on his influence. This is not to say that the Gulenists are necessarily innocent, but rather that Turkey’s attribution should be taken with a rather large grain of salt.

It’s not surprising, therefore, that this socio-political ferment could produce someone like Mevlut Mert Altintas, the police officer who shot the Russian Ambassador. This is not an isolated attack – Turkey has been wracked with violence for some time now, with car bombs, suicide bombings and shootings having become so routine that western media outlets have largely given up reporting on them. What is unique is the targeting of a Russian dignitary. The motives behind this have to be seen as fairly transparent. There are many groups who wish to see Turkey fall out with its old enemy, Russia, for a whole confusing spectrum of reasons. And groups aside, there’s also the simple fact that many Turks despise Russia, vehemently support the rebellion in Syria and are broadly sympathetic to the aims and worldview of extremist Islamist militia. It should be noted that I’ve made no attempt to attribute responsibility for this attack. The investigation, such as it is, is in a very early stage, and it’s highly probable that we may never know the truth of it as very few of the investigating bodies are of the kind whose conclusions can readily be believed at the best of times.

Taken in context, the most probable deep motivation would either be to unseat Erdogan, highlight Russia’s pro-regime actions in Syria, or both. Erdogan is tap dancing on thumb tacks when it comes to Russia. They’re one of Turkey’s most important economic partners, but their interests in the region are diametrically opposed. So long as Erdogan pursues an anti-Assad policy while maintaining his hegemonic ambitions, the possibility of an irreconcilable conflict with Russia looms large. Mismanagement of this relationship could very well see him ousted through loss of popular support, such support being the only limiting factor on the Turkish military’s capacity to remove him from power. So we can see that the focus here is largely inward when it comes to Turkey, and the measured restraint of Russia’s response is an indication that they understand this.

Implications for the end game, however, are slightly more worrying. Erdogan, secure in his popular support for now, is still somewhat beleaguered  on the international front. The price he has paid for his policies has been to devolve his role into that of ‘strongman’. What’s key, in this position, is the perception of the degree of control he has over his country. Turkey’s relationship with Russia and, somewhat more worryingly, its status as a NATO member, now rest largely on this perception. While it’s very unlikely that anything Turkey can do will lead to all out war, too much more of this nonsense will see Erdogan isolated, possibly removed from power, and Turkey on the brink of becoming yet another domino in the failed state effect which is sweeping its immediate region.

Wargaming A Trump Doomsday Part 1 – An Unlikely Coup

Trump Doomsday Scenario

Image Courtesy DeviantArt via SiberanBearOk

Media of all stripes have shown a refreshing unity in screaming about all kinds of potential Trump catastrophes. Trump and the nuclear codes, Trump and China, Trump and the end of the world as we know it. The reality is, however, that the USA is much more a bureaucracy than it is a democracy, and the systems and framework into which Trump will be plugged are robust and difficult to break. Having said that, there are a few ways Trump could bring about utter catastrophe in spite of the US Constitution and the international order. Every POTUS since WWII has potentially had the power to wheel the world to hell in a handcart, each in their own unique way, and Trump is no exception. Given a perfect storm of ill-fortune, Trump foot in mouth syndrome and the encouragement of powers who’d like to see the US crumble, doomsday scenarios are possible, if somewhat unlikely. Here’s the first of the handful of possible scenarios.


Trump Doomsday

Okay, so this is Occupy, but protests can sometimes actually be effective

Left wing media has been noisy in its call for the US Electoral College to ‘dump Trump’. In a kind of desperate sour grapes death throe, many outlets are bruiting the idea that ‘faithless electors‘ are our one last hope against a Trump administration. This is a complex and fairly unlikely proposition, and I won’t go into detail about it here. You can find an explanationsof the idea here, but I strongly suspect that in the wake of Trump’s election we’ve all become experts anyway. Suffice it to say that in this scenario, an improbable 36 electors would refuse to ratify the result of the election and leave it up to the House to pick a compromise candidate for the presidency.

This strikes me as being the worst idea in the history of bad ideas. I honestly believe that such a move would have the potential to bring down the government. Not the administration, or one party or another, but the actual US Federal Government. The great citizens of the USA have never been huge fans of the federal branch in any case, and such a move by the electoral college could set the seal, once and for all, on any notion that the citizenry have any say in their government at all. It’s not difficult to see a situation in which the deep elements of Trump’s support base, with whom it’s fairly clear he’s never really agreed and over whom he’s never demonstrated much control, suddenly see it as their democratic duty to violently protest such an outcome. It would be the ultimate proof that ‘the system is rigged’ – that ridiculous truism which Trump manipulated to such great effect.

Given more or less open encouragement from Russian and other propaganda machines, it’s easy to see such a situation escalating to the point where military power is required to support the civil – a situation which the USA, uniquely for a Western democracy, is only ever a couple of procedural steps away from. And given just how politicised the US military is (another unusual feature for a Western democracy), the US is counter-intuitively vulnerable to coup. Even if this does happen I don’t, of course, have visions of some sort of post-apocalyptic wasteland – I’m confident order would quickly be restored and maintained – but such a situation would leave the USA a lame duck internationally, declare open season amongst the ‘rising powers’, and therefore spell the end of the international order as we know it. And while there is a lamentable habit amongst conservatives and libertarians to sneer at this order, I honestly don’t believe they’d like to live in a world where it didn’t exist. The world with the USA as a strategic cypher would be one in which the UN would have lost the lynchpin of its program to limit war, and nobody could effectively predict what would happen in such a situation.

The sheer number of states which depend to a greater or lesser degree on the Pax Americana would suddenly become prey to aggressive neighbours, internal paranoia, or just plain panicky foolishness. The lid would come decidedly off a whole collection of conflicts, most worryingly the entire pick’n’mix of hideous violence which makes up the proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. And someone, or several someones, would step into the vacuum. And who could that be? Russia? China? Germany? Not one of these powers is ready, able, or even particularly willing to act as global hegemon, and the resulting situation would be fluid and dangerous.

It’s important to point out, though, that this is a very extreme projection. Like the other two situations which I’ll outline in future posts, the likelihood of it actually occurring is very, very low. But in the times in which we live, wargaming the massively improbable would seem to have become a necessity.

Next post, we’ll have a look at the possibility of Trump annoying China to the point of open conflict, how it might be done, and therefore how likely or unlikely it might be.

The Feminist Jihadi Hash Cookie Monster Of Socialism

I’m constantly being told that the right wing of politics is now ‘resurgent’, ’emboldened’, ‘victorious’, and so on. I’m willing to accept this despite the fact that anybody who lives in any English speaking western democracy has had a strong right wing trampling on the faces of the poor for hundreds of years. I get that our collective political memory only stretches back about eight minutes, and that the fantasy of ‘political correctness’ has been quite traumatic for the ‘silent majority’ who have been unable to navigate its imaginary strictures or define either it, its nonexistent effects, or even who they actually are. Given this long dark tea time of the soul which this imaginary group has suffered under this imaginary yoke, I understand that the election of various right wing populists around the world represents a sort of triumph, and it is with a sort of amused benevolence that I have observed the happiness of people the world over, loudly declaiming that a new world is coming, and also that they are incapable of coherent thought and the application of standard English spelling and grammar.

One thing I have noticed, however, is just how unfocussed this triumphalism actually is. This rising tide of populism is notable not just for its ubiquity, but for its lack of coherence. Logical coherence, that is. Unlike many other commentators from the dreaded Liberal Elite, I’m well known for actually taking the trouble to translate right wing declarations into English and then trying to understand what they mean. One of the things which has emerged most starkly from this process is the fact that the silent majority, having apparently been suffering in the wilderness for so long, are now unprepared for the light of day. This is most apparent in their lack of a single, coherent target for their ungrammatical vituperation.

This is bad. How can this silent majority (who, in actual fact, I am rather sick of hearing from at high volume) really get around to rolling us back into the 1950’s if they simply scattergun their poison around in such an undirected manner? It seems everyone’s getting a serve. The educated, the expert, the homosexual, indeterminate, ethnic – the list goes on. Given that the essential element of any mindless, ungenerous lurch towards the politics of division is a scapegoat, I worry that the populist right and their legions have failed, thus far, to really focus their bile on any single group or entity. But I think I can help.

I give you, ladies and gentlemen, the Feminist Jihadi Hash Cookie Monster of Socialism. This nightmarish creature stalks the hinterlands of political dialogue, insisting on equal rights for those unfortunates born without benefit of penis, loudly proclaiming the innocent virtue of militant Islam and Sharia law, and encouraging the reckless spending of public monies with wild abandon. As an enemy of the state, this dread monster outstrips even the Goat Marrying Slippery Slope Beast of Rainbow Flagness. I urge all my friends in the silent majority to become cognisant of this mythical beast and, in future, to direct their prurient spite in this single direction. This, more than anything else, will help them to make the imaginary changes to the imaginary world in which they live, for which they have so vehemently lobbied. If future ‘two minutes hate’ sessions on the internet can be focussed on the Feminist Jihadi Hash Cookie Monster of Socialism, I guarantee that the rust belt will become unrusty, the urban working poor (of which I am one) will all get a chicken each, and the new dawn of the better tomorrow will shine out in a pure, dazzling blaze of white, heterosexual, ‘plain-speaking’ light.

Because in no way, shape or form have ‘we the people’ been sold any kind of con. No, no – not at all.

What Does Racism Mean, Anyway?


Pauline Hanson has a point.

Paragraph break while readers get back on their chairs.

The fearless Ms Hanson did have a point when she lamented that many of the people calling her a racist do not, in fact, know the definition of the word ‘racism’. I think a great many people are unaware of the exact definition. What they do know, however, is what they think it means. I find it odd that Ms Hanson would object to this kind of usage, given that this would appear to be the first time she’s resorted to anything resembling a dictionary. While I applaud this sudden lurch towards an academic understanding of words and things, I do feel compelled to point out that she’s muffed it.

You see, the main reason people don’t have a single clear definition for ‘racism’ is that the word does not have a single, monolithic definition. It’s always the same with pesky abstract nouns. There’s popular usage, the rather precise and fussy definitions used by various branches of academia, definitions in law and, after all that, the definitions that end up in the dictionary. Yes, definitions, plural. Not definition, singular.

And it’s really not the dictionary definition we’re concerned with when we’re talking about any sort of vox populi statement. It’s the duty of the listener, in any kind of communication, to make an effort to understand what their interlocutor actually means, and when people call Pauline racist, what they mean is that there is a fundamental assumption of ethnic superiority inherent in her particular brand of mythical monoculturism. Or, to put it in simpler terms – she’s a racist.

I suppose it’s not exactly a state secret that Senator Hanson is terrible at language. In fairness, linguistic capability is not what her supporters value her for. It’s for her ‘straight talking’, the way she ‘keeps the bastards honest’ and stands up to ‘lefty elites’. It’s a shame, then, that she hasn’t stuck to her core competencies. Incoherent diatribes blaming anybody and everybody for problems which are never clearly defined are the core, the fundamental bedrock of right wing populism. All of this semantic trickery is much more properly kept in the arsenal of the left.

If I were Pauline Hanson I’d be very careful about precision in language. I’d strongly advise she stick to inchoate expressions of injured outrage – if she gets too specific, it might become apparent to her supporters that she does not, in fact, have anything else.

The Futility of Trump Analysis

Image Credit NY Times

Image Credit NY Times

The question on everybody’s mind, I think, is: “What is Donald Trump actually going to do?”

A great many words have been written on this subject and a great many of these words have been written by people whose business is words. Which means that the vast majority of this analysis is simply useless. As I’ve been saying since the earliest stages of the campaign, focussing on what Trump actually says is not particularly useful for determining either what he means or what he intends to do. With Obama, parsing and analysing his every word was often worthwhile. Obama is a rhetorician and career politician. He speaks (and probably thinks) in policy-making terms, which means that there can be precise and specific meanings to be mined from his lightest comments.

Trump, on the other hand, has spent most of his life selling big, visionary projects. While the two disciplines are related, they are still entirely distinct in that the goals relating to the use of language are subtly but significantly different. The effective language of politics is about making quite narrow and technical concepts sound broad and appealing whilst avoiding inadvertent commitment to the impossible. The effective language of sales is about persuasion, personal bonding and desire, with specific meaning sitting very much in the back seat, while commitment isn’t even in the car. And whatever else he is, Trump is a consummate salesman.

In his recent touch and love session with the New York Times, where he attempted to heal some wounds and use his corporate slugger charm to win them over, some very direct questions were asked of him and his answers recorded in transcript form. In response to repeated questions about whether he would pursue the prosecution of Hilary Clinton, for example, one of his responses was:

“No, no, but it’s just not something that I feel very strongly about. I feel very strongly about health care. I feel very strongly about an immigration bill that I think even the people in this room can be happy. You know, you’ve been talking about immigration bills for 50 years and nothing’s ever happened.

I feel very strongly about an immigration bill that’s fair and just and a lot of other things. There are a lot of things I feel strongly about. I’m not looking to look back and go through this. This was a very painful period. This was a very painful election with all of the email things and all of the foundation things and all of the everything that they went through and the whole country went through. This was a very painful period of time. I read recently where it was, it was, they’re saying, they used to say it was Lincoln against whoever and none of us were there to see it. And there aren’t a lot of recordings of that, right?

But the fact is that there were some pretty vicious elections; they say this was, this was the most.

They say it was definitely the most vicious primary. And I think it’s very important to look forward.”

This is classic fast sales talk. The majority of these statements don’t actually mean anything, they’re not obviously connected in any way and they’re certainly not designed to convey any specific information. It’s about persuasion – delivering an impression of character. A flood of words to make the speaker seem forgiving and reasonable, delivered apparently willy-nilly and with, I think, a fairly transparent effort to confuse and distract – to derail forensic questioning. The structure of this response is, in its own way, masterly.

We start with a “No, no,” which sounds very much like a direct answer to the question, but which is immediately qualified into meaninglessness. This qualification leads to a crude and largely meaningless segue into immigration and health, followed by the payload – the statement that Trump actually wants to deliver: namely, that the campaign has been vicious (the implication being that things said during it shouldn’t be taken too seriously). Then there’s a joke, and then finally we have the answer, which isn’t actually an answer at all.

If you can be bothered, you can examine the full transcript here, where you’ll see that all of his responses broadly follow this pattern. It’s a sales talk. He’s not trying to tell us anything, he’s really only interested in how we feel about him. I still think this is the most significant factor in his success, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, and I don’t understand why so many analysts are failing to understand this. But as far as analysis and prediction goes, I think it’s my job to say what nobody else in this clickbait, instant gratification culture wants to say. Predicting Donald Trump’s actions on the basis of his sales pitch is impossible. We’ll have to capture a great deal more of what he has to say before we can determine exactly what he means and, by that time, he’ll probably already be doing what he always intended to do. Which is kind of what sales patter is all about.