Trump is needlessly boxing himself in with the praise he is giving to Kim.
If, for example, China bends the North Koreans against Trump because of planned tariffs, what can Trump do ?
If he has to walk back his praise then he looks clownish and admits he made a mistake. Or he tries to hide the fact the deal isn't working, much as Obama tried to do with Iran.
Either way it is lose-lose for Trump.
Unless of course Kim pulls through and really denuclearizes. But why not save the praise for that later date ?
If Trump was a rational player I'd say this was a midterms move.
But then, part of Trumps power is being an irrational player. In game theory it is usually the better position.
View original post
I agree he hasn't given anything away that costs much to the US. But those compliments and photo-ops are by all accounts worth a lot to North Korea - Kim's father and grandfather both tried to get them and failed. If you have something the other side really wants, even if it's pretty unimportant to you yourself, you'd better keep it until you can get something substantial in return. Otherwise, well, maybe you didn't lose much, but by giving up some of your leverage almost for free, you still weakened your hand, and also gave your opponent more confidence that they'll be able to win further concessions at later stages of the negotiation, so you reduced the chance that you'll get everything you want in the end.
In the case of foreign policy, deliberate signaling and subtle turns of phrase have little or nothing to do with political correctness. It's about negotiating between the competing interests of different nations, and maintaining a reputation that will help in future negotiations.
If you want to argue that getting out of Korea and learning to live with a nuclear-armed North Korea should be the goal, my question would be, then why have the summit at all? South Korea - you know, the country that actually bears most of the risk in any war with North Korea - was already engaging and negotiating. US involvement is absolutely needed if the goal is complete denuclearization of North Korea, but if it isn't, why interfere in South Korea's negotiations?
Yeah, I wasn't really expecting you to be very impressed by the South Korea argument. But, similar to what I said above, if the US no longer wants to be closely involved in this sort of thing abroad, then it also shouldn't interfere and undermine the negotiating positions of the countries in the region, who don't have the luxury of being able to walk away. Sooner or later, if the talks between the two Koreas went anywhere, they would have had to come to the same point of drawing down American military presence in South Korea - but it would have been a big bargaining chip.
View original postI still don't see how he's given anything away of substance. He's given them compliments & photo-ops. Now maybe this is a big deal in the conventional practices of diplomacy & official statements, but the same statesmen who would have refused to even meet with Kim would also not have made the same sort of comments about the summit with which the article took such exception in its opening paragraph.
I agree he hasn't given anything away that costs much to the US. But those compliments and photo-ops are by all accounts worth a lot to North Korea - Kim's father and grandfather both tried to get them and failed. If you have something the other side really wants, even if it's pretty unimportant to you yourself, you'd better keep it until you can get something substantial in return. Otherwise, well, maybe you didn't lose much, but by giving up some of your leverage almost for free, you still weakened your hand, and also gave your opponent more confidence that they'll be able to win further concessions at later stages of the negotiation, so you reduced the chance that you'll get everything you want in the end.
View original postI heard once during the campaign that Trump's followers took him seriously but not literally and his critics, and the media took him literally, but not seriously. No one expected him to prosecute every Mexican for rape or throw Clinton in prison, what they liked was that he saw things the same way. That too many Mexicans are criminally inclined and that Crooked Hillary deserves to be in prison. It's liberals get all nitpicky about that stuff and prosecute people for Nazism when they film dog tricks and fire people for thought crime and aberrant expressions. What's the conservative equivalent of suing wedding cake bakers and pizzerias? They fire teachers from private schools for going explicitly against the curriculum, whereas liberals fire public school teachers for off-campus political activity.
View original postTrump ran against political correctness and thought-policing, and he's not going to parse his words the way liberals demand of conservative or Republican politicians and public figures, with major policy shifts being deliberately signaled by minute turns of phrase. As should be fairly obvious as of the last three years.
In the case of foreign policy, deliberate signaling and subtle turns of phrase have little or nothing to do with political correctness. It's about negotiating between the competing interests of different nations, and maintaining a reputation that will help in future negotiations.
View original postWith that in mind, the stuff he "gave" North Korea & Kim, is negligible, and nothing the US is going to suffer for missing. The concessions he suggests are beneficial to the US as well, as it frees up military resources and brings the troops home. He's not proposing to throw good money after bad.
If you want to argue that getting out of Korea and learning to live with a nuclear-armed North Korea should be the goal, my question would be, then why have the summit at all? South Korea - you know, the country that actually bears most of the risk in any war with North Korea - was already engaging and negotiating. US involvement is absolutely needed if the goal is complete denuclearization of North Korea, but if it isn't, why interfere in South Korea's negotiations?
View original postRegarding the dangers of sticking with his announcement, A) he can always go right back to insulting and publicly mocking Kim (you can look at the history of his commentary on the man as evidence of his negotiating ability - by leading off with the Rocket Man insult, he got Kim to a place where he was as happy as the article suggests by getting a friendly meeting and genial compliments) and B) who on Earth cares about South Korea's opinion? If they need US troops & military aid, they can bend over and take it. This is not a mutual threat we are facing together, where we need to be terrified of our allies backing out and seeking a separate peace. If South Korea wants to have a foreign policy opinion, they can call the White House and politely ask what it should be. This is not the days of Mahan where we need bases around the world to project power. We have a nuclear powered navy bigger than any two others. If we need to project power somewhere (and we don't), we can go and do it without needing a friendly country in which to land planes. And there has been no president with more credibility to follow through with such a policy than Trump.
Yeah, I wasn't really expecting you to be very impressed by the South Korea argument. But, similar to what I said above, if the US no longer wants to be closely involved in this sort of thing abroad, then it also shouldn't interfere and undermine the negotiating positions of the countries in the region, who don't have the luxury of being able to walk away. Sooner or later, if the talks between the two Koreas went anywhere, they would have had to come to the same point of drawing down American military presence in South Korea - but it would have been a big bargaining chip.
So. Trump and the little rocket man.
- 13/06/2018 10:09:45 PM
955 Views
Typical nonsense
- 13/06/2018 11:12:19 PM
569 Views
Wow, I get line by line commentary... nice. 
- 14/06/2018 12:22:12 AM
470 Views
- 14/06/2018 12:22:12 AM
470 Views
Actually, the article that got the commentary, I left your not-particularly risible words alone 
- 14/06/2018 06:12:58 AM
589 Views
- 14/06/2018 06:12:58 AM
589 Views
The point is, in a negotiation, it's about what things are worth to the other side - not to you.
- 14/06/2018 08:04:30 AM
486 Views
Mostly agree with you
- 14/06/2018 10:25:35 AM
500 Views
Terrifying if Trump's emotive language is genuine
- 13/06/2018 11:27:37 PM
628 Views
So less on the article...
- 14/06/2018 05:01:26 PM
494 Views
didn't you know that joint military operations are all the keep them from rolling of South Korea???? *NM*
- 14/06/2018 07:23:12 PM
290 Views
As I said to Cannoli - it's not about what it costs the US, but about what it's worth to North Korea
- 14/06/2018 07:26:43 PM
521 Views
Trump doesn't care what Kim and North Korea pretend...
- 14/06/2018 07:48:26 PM
484 Views
It certainly seems that way.
- 14/06/2018 11:14:58 PM
495 Views
The conservative never-Trumpers hate him as much, if not more, than the liberals.
- 14/06/2018 11:36:46 PM
478 Views
Funny how it went from Trump is going to start WWIII to Trump caved
- 14/06/2018 07:21:44 PM
539 Views
Um, yes. Trump radically changed his position, so the media descriptions changed too?
- 14/06/2018 07:40:37 PM
488 Views
The problem is the media posistion is always the same, Trump is wrong.
- 14/06/2018 08:30:38 PM
479 Views
That would be more convincing if you said it in a case where he was right.
- 14/06/2018 09:17:43 PM
485 Views
I don't agree...
- 14/06/2018 09:37:23 PM
488 Views
They're not contradictory - just a bit more subtle than having two binary options.
- 14/06/2018 11:01:39 PM
620 Views
Here you are being too optimistic. Sadly for the US and the world.
- 15/06/2018 05:55:14 PM
492 Views
I'd say it was mostly the Democrats who caused and are causing this divide.
- 20/06/2018 09:07:58 AM
562 Views
If you think it's mostly Democrats, you're partisan enough to be a part of the problem.
- 20/06/2018 12:29:38 PM
480 Views
Ratings are creeping up because of outrage fatigue ? That makes no sense.
- 20/06/2018 09:02:17 AM
508 Views