Verbatim Mac



January/February Disadvantage UpdatesBy: Dustin Rimmey, Topeka High School, KansasResolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce Direct Commercial Sales and/or Foreign Military Sales of arms from the United States.Summary: Get the semester jumpstarted with these fresh updates to several of the popular topic disads with affirmative answers!Table of Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u January/February Disadvantage Updates PAGEREF _Toc30753123 \h 1DIB—Aff PAGEREF _Toc30753124 \h 1New F-35 to Singapore Thumps PAGEREF _Toc30753125 \h 1Iraq Cuts Thump PAGEREF _Toc30753126 \h 1Growth Inevitable PAGEREF _Toc30753127 \h 1Collapse Inevitable—Reliance on Raw Materials PAGEREF _Toc30753128 \h 1Aff - Thumpers PAGEREF _Toc30753129 \h 1DIB—Neg PAGEREF _Toc30753130 \h 1New DOD Regs--Key to Readiness PAGEREF _Toc30753131 \h 1KT Alliances PAGEREF _Toc30753132 \h 1Neg – Internal Link/Impact PAGEREF _Toc30753133 \h 1DIB Stocks--Aff PAGEREF _Toc30753134 \h 1Rise Inevitable—US-Iran Tensions PAGEREF _Toc30753135 \h 1Iran Thumps PAGEREF _Toc30753136 \h 1DIB Stocks—Neg PAGEREF _Toc30753137 \h 1Fill-In—Both Ways PAGEREF _Toc30753138 \h 1Saudi Fill-In Inevitable PAGEREF _Toc30753139 \h 1Russia = No, China = Yes PAGEREF _Toc30753140 \h 1Fill-In—Russia—Aff PAGEREF _Toc30753141 \h 1Russia’s Arms Exports Increasing PAGEREF _Toc30753142 \h 1Turkey Fill-In PAGEREF _Toc30753143 \h 1Oil Price Updates—Both Ways PAGEREF _Toc30753144 \h 1Oil Prices High – Update PAGEREF _Toc30753145 \h 1Aff? – No Price Spikes PAGEREF _Toc30753146 \h 1Politics--Agenda Disads—Aff PAGEREF _Toc30753147 \h 1Impeachment Thumps Everything PAGEREF _Toc30753148 \h 1USMCA—Impeachment Thumps PAGEREF _Toc30753149 \h 1USMCA—No Impact PAGEREF _Toc30753150 \h 1Politics--Elections Disads—Can Go Both Ways PAGEREF _Toc30753151 \h 1Impeachment Thumps PAGEREF _Toc30753152 \h 1Iran Thumps PAGEREF _Toc30753153 \h 1Dems Inevitably Divided PAGEREF _Toc30753154 \h 1Politics--Impeachment PAGEREF _Toc30753155 \h 1No Action until Tuesday PAGEREF _Toc30753156 \h 1If there is a Witness Vote…Rand Paul = Wild PAGEREF _Toc30753157 \h 1Politics--Impeachment Disads—Nuts and Bolts PAGEREF _Toc30753158 \h 1Dismiss Vote—Will Fail PAGEREF _Toc30753159 \h 1Senate—Rule Changes PAGEREF _Toc30753160 \h 1Trial Updates PAGEREF _Toc30753161 \h 1Politics Links—Neg PAGEREF _Toc30753162 \h 1Members of Congress Have Large Defense Holdings PAGEREF _Toc30753163 \h 1Politics---AT-Impeachment CP PAGEREF _Toc30753164 \h 12AC PAGEREF _Toc30753165 \h 1DIB—AffNew F-35 to Singapore ThumpsNew Jet Sales to Singapore will bolster the DIBEllen Mitchell, 1-9-2020, "Pentagon notifies Congress of $2.75B proposed fighter jet sale to Singapore," TheHill, Trump administration has moved forward a possible $2.75 billion F-35 fighter jet sale to Singapore, formally notifying Congress of the deal on Thursday. The sale includes four initial F-35B short take-off and vertical landing variant aircraft, with the option to acquire an additional eight as well as relevant equipment and support. “This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States,” a statement posted to the website of the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) said. The DSCA handles foreign military sales. “Singapore is a strategic friend and Major Security Cooperation Partner and an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Asia Pacific region,” it stated. Singapore in February 2019 first announced it planned to buy the F-35s from U.S. manufacturer Lockheed Martin Corp as it looks to replace its current F-16 fleet. The country’s roughly 60 F-16 jets entered service in 1998 but will be retired shortly after 2030. Singapore joins the 10 other foreign militaries that have decided or are seeking to add the advanced fighter jet into its arsenal. The United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, South Korea and Israel all buy the aircraft. Turkey was barred from purchasing the aircraft last year over its decision to buy the Russian-made S-400?air defense missile system.?Iraq Cuts ThumpThe US Will Cut FMF to Iraq if they ask to remove US TroopsVivian Salama, 1-14-2020, "U.S. may cut all military aid to Iraq if troops are asked to leave," MarketWatch, — The Trump administration is preparing possible cuts of $250 million in military aid to Iraq, funds already approved by Congress, in the event that the government expels U.S. troops, and is reconsidering a broad spectrum of other economic and military assistance that is not yet committed. The State Department and the Department of Defense have discussed the military assistance funds in emails reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The emails indicate that the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs is working to cut all $250 million in funds under the U.S. foreign military financing program for Iraq for the current fiscal year. The bureau also plans to ask the White House Office of Management and Budget whether it can eliminate the $100 million request for fiscal year 2021, “due to current optics on the ground,” according to the emails. “This does not preclude further congressional consideration of foreign assistance should the situation change in Iraq,” one of the emails said. The emails assert that no final decision has been made but top administration officials have ordered a review on what funds may be held or reallocated in the event that Iraq require the U.S. troops be removed.Growth InevitableDIB Growth Inevitable—Modernization and UpdgradesGlobe Newswire, 1-15-2020, "Global Aerospace &amp; Defense Market Study, 2020: Market Growth, Emerging Technologies, Budgetary Spending &amp; Trends, Key Strategic Defense Programs," No Publication, defense industrial base across the U.S., Europe & most parts of the world has been on a renaissance of sorts over the recent years given the rapid transformation & evolution of geo-political dynamics, ongoing conflicts across some parts of the world & growing security threats. The modernization & upgrade of existing systems & hardware and their replacement with proven technologies and current, off the shelf solutions is providing significant growth opportunities to the U.S. defense industrial base. Thus, with acknowledgement of strong external threat perceptions, there is political consensus on fast tracked modernization, upgrade & replacements, which have been further corroborated by technological developments by the industry which are promising next generation capabilities at a workable & optimized TCO proposition. The global defense industrial base, thus, is looking forward to a long & much anticipated activity boom with most OEMs reinvigorating their industrial bases, in line with the age of disruptive technologies, led by digitalization, additive manufacturing, unmanned & optionally manned operating capabilities & artificial intelligence, for making the most of this current phase of demand upswing.Collapse Inevitable—Reliance on Raw MaterialsSupply chain disruptions make threats to the DIB InevitableSteve Minter, 1-15-2020, "Global Manufacturer: How Risky is the Defense Supply Chain?," IndustryWeek, U.S. relies on a single Chinese company for buta-netriol (BT), the chemical needed to produce the solid rocket fuel used to propel Hellfire air-to-ground missiles. Hellfire missiles are launched from attack helicopters and unmanned drones. The last U.S. producer of BT, Cytec Industries, discontinued production in 2004. That is but one example of what a recent report, commissioned by the Alliance for American Manufacturing, called "our military's growing and dangerous reliance on foreign nations for the raw materials, parts and finished products needed to defend the American people." "Remaking American Security," authored by Guardian Six Consulting President John Adams, a retired Army general, warns that "foreign sourcing puts America's military readiness in the hands of potentially unreliable supplier nations and undermines the ability to develop capabilities needed to win on future battlefields." The report calls for action to increase domestic production of the natural resources and manufactured goods necessary to equip the U.S. military. "America's vulnerability today is frightening," said Adams. "This report is a wake-up call for America to pay attention to the growing threat posed by the steady deterioration of our defense industrial base. Excessive and unwise outsourcing of American manufacturing to other nations weakens America's military capability. As a soldier, I've witnessed firsthand the importance of our nation's ability to rapidly produce and field a sophisticated array of capabilities. There is a real risk that supply chain vulnerabilities will hamper our response to future threats."?China makes supply chain disruptions inevitableSteve Minter, 1-15-2020, "Global Manufacturer: How Risky is the Defense Supply Chain?," IndustryWeek, global sourcing offers cost advantages and, in some cases, access to the only supplies available, there are risks that come with an extended supply chain. Much of the concern centers on China, not just a manufacturing dynamo but also a growing military power. China increased its defense spending by 11% in 2012 to $106 billion and is investing heavily in sophisticated military hardware. China presents not just a supply chain risk but is suspected to be the epicenter of state-sponsored cyberespionage. "China presents the largest challenge to U.S. supply chain integrity," the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission noted in its 2012 report to Congress. "Many components of defense systems and telecommunications infrastructure are manufactured in China or sourced from Chinese entities. This yields active problems with counterfeit and substandard components and raises the potential for the introduction into critical systems of intentionally subverted components. Counterfeit parts can cause failures that raise costs, adversely affect military readiness, and subject servicemen and women to unnecessary dangers. Subverted components can allow foreign militaries or intelligence services to disrupt, destroy, or otherwise compromise U.S. systems."Aff - ThumpersDIB Thumper – US-Iran WarJulia Horowitz 1/13, Cnn Business, 1-13-2020, "Defense and cybersecurity stocks have gotten a boost from US-Iran tension. Can they hold onto their gains?," CNN, high-stakes standoff between the United States and Iran in the past week has sent investors scrambling to buy shares of companies that specialize in defense and cybersecurity — a sign that traders think tensions in the Middle East won't blow over any time soon. Shares of companies whose businesses could benefit from geopolitical conflict have rallied this year, Goldman Sachs' chief US equity strategist David Kostin and colleagues observed in a note Friday. Stock in military shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) is up 8%, while shares of Northrop Grumman (NOC) and Lockheed Martin (LMT) have risen 9% and 6%, respectively. Cybersecurity specialists Zscaler (ZS) and CyberArk (CYBR) have seen shares jump 18% and 17% year-to-date, respectively. CrowdStrike (CRWD)'s stock has increased 15%. Seth Seifman, aerospace and defense analyst at JPMorgan, pointed out that some of the boost to defense stocks can be attributed to the fact that they're viewed as safe havens in times of geopolitical and economic uncertainty. Seifman said in a recent note, however, that "with so many unknowns," he was reluctant to view the US killing of Qasem Soleimani, Iran's top general, as an opportunity to buy defense stocks more aggressively over the long term. The energy sector also stands to benefit from an escalating US-Iran fight. But Goldman Sachs notes that shares have already "given back their gains, suggesting little investor belief in higher long-term oil prices." Remember: Energy was the worst-performing sector of the stock market last year. Sustained higher oil prices could help drive improvement in 2020. But analysts think that without a major disruption to supply, oil will stay in the $60 to $65 per barrel range, in part due to the strength of American shale producers. That won't do much to help suffering stocks. Can anyone get Boeing through this mess? He's going to try Dave Calhoun might have the toughest job in corporate America: Fixing Boeing (BA). As he steps into the CEO job on Monday, Calhoun is tasked with winning approval for the 737 Max to fly again, the first step in ending a 10-month crisis that has cost the company billions of dollars, my CNN Business colleague Chris Isidore reports. He must also work to repair Boeing's reputation for safety and quality that was badly damaged by the plane's grounding in March following two crashes that killed 346 people. To succeed, Calhoun, a veteran of General Electric, private equity firm Blackstone and media measurement firm Nielsen, will have to win back the trust of regulators, investors and the public. "What's Boeing need right now? It needs an inspirational leader," Ron Epstein, aerospace analyst with Bank of America Merrill Lynch, told Chris. "You have a work force demoralized by what's happened. You have to make airline customers comfortable, make regulators comfortable. You need to be a good operator because your largest production line is shutting down. Can Dave do all that? I'm not sure." Remember: A trove of internal communications released last week doesn't help matters. One employee described the jet as "designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys." Investor insight: The company's shares rose more than 130% under Calhoun's predecessor Dennis Muilenburg, who took the reins in July 2015. But they've shed 25% since last March. Muilenburg left the company with $80 million in stock and other assets but no severance, the company said last week. Here's what China is doing to avoid mass layoffs The Chinese government wants to do whatever it can to protect the economy in 2020. It's got an enormous task ahead of it, my CNN Business colleague Laura He reports. Beijing has made clear that the world's second largest economy cannot spiral into a slump and risk mass layoffs as it tangles with rising debt, cooling domestic demand and an ongoing trade war with the United States. In recent weeks, the government has bombarded the economy with a wave of stimulus measures, from tariff reductions that could help soothe the pain from rising prices, to rate cuts that could fuel more lending. Authorities are also amping up the language they're using to describe the situation. China's State Council last month called on local governments to "go to all lengths" to prevent massive job losses this year — what it characterized as the country's top policy priority. Have a few minutes? It's worth reading Laura's full story here. Up next Britain's House of Lords meets Monday to begin debate on the Brexit withdrawal agreement, which is expected to easily pass. The United Kingdom is on track to leave the European Union by the end of the month. Coming tomorrow: Earnings season kicks off in earnest. Delta Air Lines (DAL), JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Citigroup (C) and Wells Fargo (WFC) will report results.DIB Thumper – Boeing falling now, proves no impact to DIB lossJulia Horowitz 1/13, Cnn Business, 1-13-2020, "Defense and cybersecurity stocks have gotten a boost from US-Iran tension. Can they hold onto their gains?," CNN, high-stakes standoff between the United States and Iran in the past week has sent investors scrambling to buy shares of companies that specialize in defense and cybersecurity — a sign that traders think tensions in the Middle East won't blow over any time soon. Shares of companies whose businesses could benefit from geopolitical conflict have rallied this year, Goldman Sachs' chief US equity strategist David Kostin and colleagues observed in a note Friday. Stock in military shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) is up 8%, while shares of Northrop Grumman (NOC) and Lockheed Martin (LMT) have risen 9% and 6%, respectively. Cybersecurity specialists Zscaler (ZS) and CyberArk (CYBR) have seen shares jump 18% and 17% year-to-date, respectively. CrowdStrike (CRWD)'s stock has increased 15%. Seth Seifman, aerospace and defense analyst at JPMorgan, pointed out that some of the boost to defense stocks can be attributed to the fact that they're viewed as safe havens in times of geopolitical and economic uncertainty. Seifman said in a recent note, however, that "with so many unknowns," he was reluctant to view the US killing of Qasem Soleimani, Iran's top general, as an opportunity to buy defense stocks more aggressively over the long term. The energy sector also stands to benefit from an escalating US-Iran fight. But Goldman Sachs notes that shares have already "given back their gains, suggesting little investor belief in higher long-term oil prices." Remember: Energy was the worst-performing sector of the stock market last year. Sustained higher oil prices could help drive improvement in 2020. But analysts think that without a major disruption to supply, oil will stay in the $60 to $65 per barrel range, in part due to the strength of American shale producers. That won't do much to help suffering stocks. Can anyone get Boeing through this mess? He's going to try Dave Calhoun might have the toughest job in corporate America: Fixing Boeing (BA). As he steps into the CEO job on Monday, Calhoun is tasked with winning approval for the 737 Max to fly again, the first step in ending a 10-month crisis that has cost the company billions of dollars, my CNN Business colleague Chris Isidore reports. He must also work to repair Boeing's reputation for safety and quality that was badly damaged by the plane's grounding in March following two crashes that killed 346 people. To succeed, Calhoun, a veteran of General Electric, private equity firm Blackstone and media measurement firm Nielsen, will have to win back the trust of regulators, investors and the public. "What's Boeing need right now? It needs an inspirational leader," Ron Epstein, aerospace analyst with Bank of America Merrill Lynch, told Chris. "You have a work force demoralized by what's happened. You have to make airline customers comfortable, make regulators comfortable. You need to be a good operator because your largest production line is shutting down. Can Dave do all that? I'm not sure." Remember: A trove of internal communications released last week doesn't help matters. One employee described the jet as "designed by clowns, who in turn are supervised by monkeys." Investor insight: The company's shares rose more than 130% under Calhoun's predecessor Dennis Muilenburg, who took the reins in July 2015. But they've shed 25% since last March. Muilenburg left the company with $80 million in stock and other assets but no severance, the company said last week. Here's what China is doing to avoid mass layoffs The Chinese government wants to do whatever it can to protect the economy in 2020. It's got an enormous task ahead of it, my CNN Business colleague Laura He reports. Beijing has made clear that the world's second largest economy cannot spiral into a slump and risk mass layoffs as it tangles with rising debt, cooling domestic demand and an ongoing trade war with the United States. In recent weeks, the government has bombarded the economy with a wave of stimulus measures, from tariff reductions that could help soothe the pain from rising prices, to rate cuts that could fuel more lending. Authorities are also amping up the language they're using to describe the situation. China's State Council last month called on local governments to "go to all lengths" to prevent massive job losses this year — what it characterized as the country's top policy priority. Have a few minutes? It's worth reading Laura's full story here. Up next Britain's House of Lords meets Monday to begin debate on the Brexit withdrawal agreement, which is expected to easily pass. The United Kingdom is on track to leave the European Union by the end of the month. Coming tomorrow: Earnings season kicks off in earnest. Delta Air Lines (DAL), JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Citigroup (C) and Wells Fargo (WFC) will report results.DIB Thumper - Defense Stocks are solid now and only a presidential election will change thatLarry Light 1/16, 1-16-2020, "Defense Stocks Are Killing It, but for How Long?," Chief Investment Officer, talk has been in the air of late, in connection with Iran and the US’s drone killing of its top commander, General Qassim Suleiman. And despite lowered tension at the moment, questions are stirring about the level of Pentagon spending, which under President Donald Trump has burgeoned. The current military buildup smells like victory for investors. Defense stocks have bested the market during the Trump Administration. Just compare the S&P 500 to the largest military-oriented exchange-traded fund (5.7 billion in assets), the iShares US Aerospace & Defense. In price terms, the defense ETF is up 54% versus the broad-market index’s 44.8% in the three years Trump has been president. Whether that Wall Street trend continues depends on who the next Oval Office occupant is, Republican Trump or a Democrat. Among the leading Democratic presidential candidates are Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who are on the left side of the party. They think a lot of military spending is wasteful. In a campaign statement, Sanders complained that “we should not be spending more on the military than the next ten nations combined.” Warren has decried “our bloated defense budget.” The more moderate Joseph Biden told the Washington Post that “we can maintain a strong defense and protect our safety and security for less,” by trimming wasteful outlays. Regardless, 2020 should be good for military contractors’ stocks. While the Trump presidency has been a golden time for investors in military-oriented equities, election years in general seem good for them, regardless of who wins. Defense shares have outperformed the market in nine of the last 10 election cycles, by 16 percentage points on average, according to UBS analyst Myles Walton. Big winners nowadays are stocks in corporations like Northrup Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon. Although their prices have run up, these contractors aren’t that expensive: Northrup has a price/earnings ratio of 16, Lockheed 17, and Raytheon 18—less than the S&P 500’s. One reason for the tame multiples is that their earnings have jumped, expected to grow from 9% to 15% yearly through 2021, well ahead of the overall market’s profitability. A sweet spot for defense investors: Any time there is international tension, defense names usually surge, by Walton’s estimate, even when American forces aren’t triumphant. Take al-Qaeda’s October 2000 bombing attack on the USS Cole in a Yemeni harbor, which killed 17 sailors and wounded 39. Defense stocks rose 6% in the following three months. The military buildup under Trump has been remarkable. The defense budget authorization he recently signed, for federal fiscal year 2020, is $733 billion, up 22% from Barack Obama’s last Pentagon spending blueprint. With a leftward tilt among Democrats, though, the party’s traditional preference for domestic spending over the military kind surely will come to the fore. Post-Vietnam, Democratic presidents (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama) have reduced defense appropriations, although not by an enormous amount. A Sanders or a Warren might be more ambitious in their cuts. Not a good thing for defense industry investors.DIB—NegNew DOD Regs--Key to ReadinessThe DOD is implementing new regulations to ensure FMS doesn’t trade off with domestic needsAdriane Elliot Security Assistance Command Public Affairs, 01-15-2020, "Foreign military sales fuel U.S. partnerships," Redstone Rocket, late March, USASAC plans to field an enhanced Simplified Nonstandard Acquisition Program database and procurement system to help reduce turnaround time. The new dashboard will allow buyers to see the most urgent needs immediately and introduce an improved vendor portal and tool to manage workload. “Nonstandard equipment is critical to the military livelihood of our FMS partners,” Fansler said. “There are customers who are modernizing their armed forces, and this gives them the ability to protect their borders and contribute to regional stability. But just as importantly, they are able to answer the call when coalition operations take place and they are required to not only have the right equipment, but also the interoperable skill sets to conduct missions alongside our forces. And they have those skills because they have trained with us, on the same equipment, as part of the FMS total package.” While conducting its unique mission, USASAC team members pay close attention to the Army’s supply chain. “Army Regulation 725-50, Requisition, Receipt and Issue System” defines how Army demand planners and item managers should manage procurement and release of recurring and one-time FMS demands. Following the regulation ensures that FMS demands have no impact on stock availability and Army readiness. Further insurance against supply impacts includes: The creation of readiness driver and supply availability national stock numbers that identify items with the highest potential to impact the readiness of the system they support, and that are already in limited stock and require intensive stock management. FMS-required delivery date tags, added to NSNs to provide better tracking mechanisms. The Readiness Crosswalk Dashboard, a system that maps scheduled FMS deliveries to the NSNs. “We have several checks and balances in place to ensure we are not competing with the Army supply chain,” Fansler said. “Any item that is centrally managed, stocked and issued by the DOD will be rejected” and would not be available to be obtained for a potential FMS supply. “That’s one of many insurance policies we have in place to prevent this process from negatively impacting our armed forces.” Foreign military sales play an important part in building coalitions and protecting U.S. national security interests. With the growing emphasis on multidomain battles and near-peer adversaries, the FMS system will continue to be a vital force multiplier. “And that’s what it’s really about,” Fansler said, “helping our partners and bolstering U.S. military readiness.”KT AlliancesFMS is key to interoperability, coalition building, and counterterrorism missionsAdriane Elliot, 1-8-2020, "Total package sustains foreign partners," army.mil, 's no doubt that foreign military sales (FMS) are a critical component of U.S. foreign policy. From bolstering our allies' counterterrorism capabilities and regional stability to ensuring their interoperability and competency in helping the U.S. shoulder the burden of coalition operations, FMS will continue to play a role in our military's ability to fight and win the multidomain battle. One of our nation's staunchest allies, Poland, completed an FMS package in February 2019 that was valued at $411 million. It includes 20 M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems. This purchase, combined with last year's $4.6 billion FMS purchase of the Patriot Advanced Capability-3, is a significant boon to Poland's widely touted military modernization plan, and to NATO capabilities. With a volatile Russia on its eastern flank, Poland has aggressively stepped up its efforts to obtain more advanced weapons and to expand its defensive capabilities. The Patriot is one of the world's most powerful air defense missile systems, and its purchase is Poland's largest military procurement ever. "Allies and partners buy from the United States because we sell the world's most advanced defense systems," said Lt. Gen. Charles W. Hooper, director of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which administers the FMS program for DOD. "Through the uniquely American approach to security cooperation, we also ensure our allies and partners have all the necessary training, education and institutional capacity to effectively employ and sustain the equipment we provide."Neg – Internal Link/ImpactDefense Industrial Base needs to be innovative and modernized in order to combat threats from China and RussiaMichael Rubin 1/14, 1-14-2020, "The Simple Reason Why America Could Lose the Next Cold War to Russia or China," National Interest, <a class="vglnk" href="" rel="nofollow"> <<< Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.>>>Soon after announcing he would seek the Republican presidential nomination, George W. Bush chastised President Bill Clinton for taking too soft an approach toward China. Clinton “made a mistake [in] calling China a strategic partner,” Bush said, saying China was instead a “strategic competitor.” This recognition was also at the heart of President Barack Obama’s call for a “pivot to Asia.” Russia, too, has made no secret of its global ambition. Both Beijing and Moscow invest in new technologies. In 2007, China surprised the Pentagon with a successful anti-satellite weapon test, and U.S. strategists grow increasingly concerned about Russia and China’s new class of hypersonic weaponry. Whether through theft, ingenuity, or a combination of the two, both countries military industries’ have emerged as top competitors and, in certain categories, threaten to surpass U.S. capabilities. SPONSORED CONTENT Recommended by Whether policymakers want to admit it or not, the United States is not only embroiled in a new Cold War and capabilities race, but is also facing a new Sputnik moment when the capability deficit will become impossible to ignore. To succeed in this new environment, the United States must foster defense innovation, strengthen industrial manufacturing capabilities, and avoid any action that pushes manufacturing capabilities offshore, or forces companies to abandon the defense sector altogether. Alas, the system that exists now does the opposite. Consider defense acquisition: Navigating the process is cumbersome. Too often, winning contracts has more to do with connections and bureaucratic battles of attrition than ability to deliver. Firms hire retiring flag officers for their contacts, and if they cannot deliver, quickly let them go. When niche upstarts win business, they must fend off tendentious appeals from those with bigger pockets until they give up or fold into their competitors. Current laws and regulations governing defense acquisition are burdensome, and often push commercial companies that do not traditionally supply the Defense Department away from working with the government. To demand positive assessments on previous U.S. government contracts creates a Catch-22 for new technology start-ups who can never break into the race. Acquisition must balance regulation and oversight with the need to avoid smothering innovation. The government can demand capability, but should not micromanage how to achieve it. Bureaucracy smothers. Requiring endless data for ever smaller-value contracts is excessive. In order to provide Persian language analysis to the U.S. Army as an individual from my home, for example, I must provide certifications on everything from waste disposal and recycling to electrical safety in my home office to promises to be an equal opportunity employer and spend hours filling out paperwork completely irrelevant to my work or deliverables. For those manufacturing small parts and critical technology, the requirements are even more onerous, and erode already miniscule profit margins. The administrators needed to process ever more data and forms can saddle niche defense firms with a permanent cost long after the period of their contracts expire. Innovation drowns under the weight of regulation. And while Congress rightly wants to control pricing, excessive regulation does the opposite. New laws and regulations would only compound uncertainty and dissuade companies from partnering with the Defense Department at a time when injection of new ideas and technologies is imperative. Market forces rather than excessive regulation can best reduce costs. There is a reason why private space ventures now threaten to leapfrog over NASA efforts, or at least replicate them at a fraction of the cost. 10 SECONDS Do You Know What Happened On This Day? Congress and the Defense Department must also adjust to the tech industry rather than expect tech to adjust to it. Tech firms often have high-profit margins, but they also have high research and development costs. If government bureaucrats try to cap profits to 15 percent, for example, firms with critical capabilities will refrain from working with the Pentagon, and those seeking government contracts will be unable to innovate. Whereas Google made headlines by refusing to work with the Pentagon while simultaneously aiding China, that is the exception to the rule. Most firms are patriotic, but they cannot feed families with patriotism alone. Many forfeit other opportunities in order to work with government. When bureaucrats then cap profits, it leaves tech firms questioning if they should avoid government contracts altogether. Agility also matters. In the time it takes to build a ship, technology can undergo generational change. Inflexible contracts determining technological specifications at the time of initial allocation simply means that at the ship’s launch, its onboard computers and software will be obsolete rather than cutting edge. Revolving door leadership during both the Obama and Trump administrations and continuing resolutions in lieu of proper budgeting make planning for an investment in new technologies and platforms even more difficult. Consider the Navy: Purchasing a ship might bring jobs to a shipyard, but delaying or suspending future purchases can permanently cripple manufacturing as employees move away or look elsewhere. Government, of course, must have a role. Rather than micromanaging, however, it should both ensure that critical manufacturing capabilities remain in North America and defend against acquisitions of technology firms and military manufacturers by foreign competitors. It should focus more on expanding capabilities and its technological base rather than micromanaging profit and processes better left to the free market. Poor management of the Defense industrial base is eroding capabilities rather than enhancing them at a time when the United States no longer has a margin for error. To win the new Cold War, the United States must tap its private-sector technological superiority. Victory is not possible, however, if the Pentagon continues to rely on antiquated, clunky, and counterproductive processes.DIB Stocks--AffRise Inevitable—US-Iran TensionsThe hit on Soleimani and subsequent fall out has increased the value of defense stocksCahal Milmo, 1-10-2020, "US-Iran standoff adds ?14bn to value of top arms firms," No Publication, world’s largest arms manufacturers have seen their value rise by nearly ?14bn in the wake of the assassination of Qassem Soleimani as the confrontation between the United States and Iran fuels expectations of lucrative new defence equipment orders. While the world has collectively held its breath since the drone attack which killed Iran’s de facto military leader, investors have been betting the defence sector is set to see a boom in sales. Analysis by i shows that in the 24 hours after the assassination ordered by President Donald Trump, the stock market value of the world’s nine largest listed arms companies rose by $13bn (?10bn). By the afternoon that increase had risen further to $17.9bn (?13.7bn). Lockheed Martin, the American conglomerate which is by far the world’s largest arms producer with showcase weaponry such as the F-35 fighter jet, saw its value reach an all-time high last Friday, increasing by $4.2bn in a single day to $116bn.US-Iran tensions cause defense stocks to soarDonald Shaw, 1-13-2020, "The Members of Congress Who Profit From War," Sludge, was shortly after midnight in Baghdad on Friday, Jan. 3, when a missile strike ordered by President Trump killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. When stock markets opened the next day, dozens of members of Congress saw bumps in their portfolios as their holdings in defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon increased in value on the possibility of war. Over the next three trading days, the leading defense industry stock index would surge 2.4% above Thursday’s close. Among these members of Congress with personal investments in the defense industry are several who sit on committees that determine major sources of funding for defense companies and weapons contractors.Iran ThumpsIran Thumps DIB StocksSarah Anderson, 1-12-2020, "Is Iran Conflict a War for the Arms Corporations? Congress Needs to End Profiteering," Informed Comment, () – Surging stock prices for military contractors gave several CEOs an early payday after Trump’s Iran aggression. The prospect of war with Iran is terrifying. Experts predict as many as a million people could die if the current tensions lead to a full-blown war. Millions more would become refugees across the Middle East, while working families across the U.S. would bear the brunt of our casualties. But there is one set of people who stand to benefit from the escalation of the conflict: CEOs of major U.S. military contractors. This was evident in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. assassination of a top Iranian military official on January 2. As soon as the news reached financial markets, these companies’ share prices spiked. Wall Street traders know that a war with Iran would mean more lucrative contracts for U.S. weapons makers. Since top executives get much of their compensation in the form of stock, they benefit personally when the value of their company’s stock goes up. I took a look at the stock holdings of the CEOs at the top five Pentagon contractors (Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman). Using the most recent available data, I calculated that these five executives held company stock worth approximately $319 million just before the U.S. drone strike that killed Iranian leader Qasem Soleimani. By the stock market’s closing bell the following day, the value of their combined shares had increased to $326 million.DIB Stocks—NegIran killed this Disad Dead…..Fill-In—Both WaysSaudi Fill-In InevitableSaudi Fill-In inevitable, Saudi Arabian Military Industries have agreements with 25 other foreign countries to circumvent a US banAgnes Helou, 1-14-2020, "Amid Western arms embargoes on Saudi Arabia, SAMI has a backup plan," Defense News, — Saudi Arabian Military Industries is prepared to move forward with product development and weapon system projects should Western embargoes limit those efforts, the CEO told Defense News. “We have signed more than 25 agreements with foreign partners, so we have multiple opportunities to acquire alternative technologies from other partners where there are no limitations. There is no risk that any limitation of a single country or government can block Saudi Arabia from getting a full localized portfolio of products,” Andreas Schwer said during the Dubai Airshow in November. In June 2019, a British court of appeals ruled that the country’s arms sales to Saudi Arabia were unlawful, citing human rights concerns amid the kingdom’s participation in the Yemen conflict. Additionally, Germany froze arms deliveries to Saudi Arabia after journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed in October 2019. The West has blamed Saudi Arabia for the death, but the kingdom has denied involvement. And in July 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives approved three resolutions to block President Donald Trump’s planned sale of guided missiles and other weapons to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan. “If the U.S. blocks us, we still have the opportunity for almost any of the products and any of the weapon systems to get it localized through our partnerships. Opportunities can be European, Asian, South African and Far East sources,” Schwer said.Russia = No, China = YesRussia Can’t Fill in for Saudi Arabia, but China CanAgnes Helou, 1-14-2020, "Amid Western arms embargoes on Saudi Arabia, SAMI has a backup plan," Defense News, asked about possible cooperation with Russian or Chinese firms, Schwer said his state-owned defense firm "respects any international embargo, so currently we are not in a position to cooperate with any Russian entity or company because of the existing regulations. As such, Russia is not a partner of SAMI, but business with China is possible for SAMI. That is one of our potential sources of partnerships.”Fill-In—Russia—AffRussia’s Arms Exports IncreasingRussia has already filled-in---AsiaMaria Shagina, 1-10-2020, "Has Russia’s Pivot to Asia Worked?," The Diplomat, Diversification As the relationship with the West deteriorated, Russia aimed to boost its energy exports and arms sales to Asian customers. With the launch of the East Siberia-Pacific Ocean pipeline, Russia became the largest oil supplier to China, replacing Saudi Arabia. Moscow is also slated to become a major natural gas supplier to China. In December 2019, the long-awaited Power of Siberia pipeline came online, starting the delivery of 38 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year for 30 years. A burgeoning Asian LNG market with high premium attracted Novatek, Russia’s leading LNG company. The company is planning to ship 80-85 percent of its liquefied natural gas from the Yamal and Gydan peninsulas to the Asia-Pacific. Similarly, in the defense sector Russia prioritized the pivot to the East. Russia ramped up its weapons sales to Southeast Asia and become the largest arms exporter to the region. Over 60 percent of its arms shipments, including missile defense systems, tanks and fighter jets, were directed to India, Laos, Vietnam, Myanmar, the Philippines and Indonesia. India strengthened its position as Russia’s largest weapons customer and purchased more than $4 billion worth of arms in 2017. Defying Western sanctions, Russia?sold?its advanced military weapons such as the Sukhoi Su-35 air fighter and S-400 surface-to-air missile defense system to China and India. Once resistant to the idea, since 2014, Russia has opened its upstream sector and transportation infrastructure to investors from China and India.Russia has already filled-in--IndiaMaria Shagina, 1-10-2020, "Has Russia’s Pivot to Asia Worked?," The Diplomat, the defense sector, India has played a crucial role in Russia’s import substitution. Indian chipsets were chosen for Russia’s new generation satellites GLONASS after being affected by sectoral sanctions. In 2018, India finalized a long-pending contract for the building of four Russian guided-missile frigates at the Goa Shipyard. The ships were originally designed to be equipped with Ukrainian-made gas turbines, but after Ukraine’s military export ban the construction with technology transfer was given to the Indian state-owned shipyard for a lucrative price. Last year, India signed a cooperation agreement on the joint manufacturing of spare parts and components for Russian military equipment. Southeast Asia became a crucial supplier of electronic components, previously procured from NATO states. Despite Moscow’s distrust and reservations, the high-tech cooperation with Beijing appears to be a promising area of collaboration, including the building of Russia’s 5G infrastructure. China’s and India’s assistance did not come at a low cost. Capitalizing on Russia’s isolation from the West, Beijing and Delhi leveraged their bargaining positions and dictated financial conditions and the asking prices favorable for them.Turkey Fill-InEnding F35 sales to Turkey makes Russia fill-in inevitableJohn A. Tirpak, 1-14-2020, "Turkey Mostly Out of F-35 by March," Air Force Magazine, F-35 partners agreed to?eject Turkey from the F-35 program?over that country’s decision to buy and field the Russian S-400 Triumf air defense system. Lord reiterated that the two systems are incompatible, saying Russian technicians could learn too much about the F-35 from operating the S-400 in close proximity to the fighter, and Turkey is intransigent about cancelling the purchase and deployment of the S-400.The F-35 is a “computer in the sky that talks to all the other US assets,” in the air and on the surface of the Earth, Lord explained. The S-400, she revealed, “is a system that collects information on that. We will not allow one of our most precious assets to be collected-on on a routine basis.”Some countries have complained that the S-400 is more advanced and cheaper than the US offering, the Patriot, but Lord dismissed those complaints as commercial disgruntlement.Oil Price Updates—Both WaysOil Prices High – UpdateOil Prices high now – USMCA and US-China Trade Truce are the causeJulianne Geiger, 1-16-2020, "Two Reasons Why Oil Prices Rose Today," OilPrice, Geiger JULIANNE GEIGER Julianne Geiger is a veteran editor, writer and researcher for , and a member of the Creative Professionals Networking Group. More Info SHARE Facebook Twitter Google + Linkedin Reddit PREMIUM CONTENT Oil Prices Slump As Iran Tensions Ease Is The U.S. Really Insulated From A Middle East Oil Outage? OPEC Production Falls As New Quotas Begin This Oil Major Is Set To Outperform Two Reasons Why Oil Prices Rose Today By Julianne Geiger - Jan 16, 2020, 5:00 PM CST Join Our Community Oil industry Oil prices were trading up over 1% on Thursday afternoon, the latest development in the current oil market that can’t decide whether oil prices should be up or down. close [x] Video Player is loading.Pause Unmute Remaining Time -1:53 Fullscreen Today’s major catalysts include the day-ago signed truce to the US-China trade deal that promised—perhaps overly optimistically so—to see China purchase tens of billions of dollars wroth of US energy exports, along with today’s approval by the US Senate of the US-Mexico-Canada trade deal known as the USMCA, which should also provide a boost to US oil exports. Mexico and Canada are by far the largest importers of US crude oil and oil products, according to the EIA, taking more than 36 million barrels each per month, according to the latest data available. The next largest importer of US crude oil and products is South Korea, at 19.4 million barrels. Canada and Mexico have increased their take of US crude oil and products over the previous six-month period, from May to October 2019. US crude oil production has continued to steadily increase over the course of 2019, in line with those exports, before reaching 13 million barrels per day last week, according to weekly EIA data. This extra production and deal with both China (who imports between 1 million and 9 million barrels a month in crude and products from the United States) and the USMCA comes not only as the US continues to increase its production, but as it alleviates previous pipeline bottlenecks that have depressed prices somewhat. Three new pipelines launched last year between the prolific Permian basin and the US Gulf Coast, adding nearly 2.5 million bpd in takeaway capacity. New offshore oil ports, too, are set to come online over the next couple of years. WTI crude was trading at $58.61, up $0.80 (+1.38%) on Thursday afternoon, while Brent crude was trading at $64.82, up $0.82 (+1.28%) on the day.Aff? – No Price Spikes Competition between Renewable Energy and Fossil Fuels and current supply and demand puts a cap on oil pricesYen Nee Lee 1/16, 1-16-2020, “Citi explains why there’s an ‘ultimate cap’ on oil prices,” CNBC, cost of producing electricity from solar energy has in the last two years been lower than that of fossil fuels — and that “permanent change” will limit how high oil prices can climb, according to Citi. That shift is coming at a time when global oil supply is running ahead of demand, which is already weighing down on energy prices, David Bailin, chief investment officer at Citi Private Bank, said on Thursday. As evidence of the limited upside in oil prices, Bailin pointed to last year’s drones attack on the world’s largest oil processing facility in Saudi Arabia. The attack on two Saudi Aramco facilities — claimed by Iran-aligned Yemen’s Houthi rebels — cut Saudi oil production by half and the world’s daily output by 5%. “We saw an 11-day impact in the markets: The initial spike of as much as 8% in oil prices, and then it was 4% and then ultimately down to zero,” Bailin told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia.” “It’s going to take something much bigger to make a permanent impact on oil prices and have them sustainably higher than that,” he added. A shift from oil, natural gas and coal to solar power in electricity generation will be “the ultimate cap” on prices of fossil fuels, said the CIO. “We believe that’s a permanent change. In fact, our clients were investing in that as an unstoppable trend because now you can identify that cost point, it’s a great opportunity,” he said. A report released last year by the International Renewable Energy Agency predicted that electricity generated by onshore wind and solar will be consistently cheaper than any fossil fuel source starting 2020, reported Reuters. The agency is an inter-governmental body that aims to help countries transition to sustainable energy sources.Politics--Agenda Disads—AffImpeachment Thumps EverythingImpeachment procedurally comes firstAlexander Bolton, 1-7-2020, "Grassley urges McConnell to take quick action on USMCA ahead of impeachment trial," TheHill, Iowa senator said McConnell "wants to do something significant" while the Senate waits for articles of impeachment to come over from the House and that "this would fall into that category." However, he warned that if the articles come soon, the Senate will have to move immediately to the impeachment trial. "The minute those articles come over, that takes precedence under the rules and under the Constitution," he said, noting that the USMCA would then "have to come afterward."USMCA—Impeachment ThumpsUSMCA Is either inevitable or thumped by ImpeachmentAG INFORMATION NETWORK OF THE WEST, 1-13-2020, "USMCA Senate Vote," today’s Fruit Grower Report, I’m Bob Larson. We talked yesterday about Phase One of the Chinese trade deal likely being signed this week. But, that’s not the only “possible” (in air quotes) deal that could get done this week. When I spoke Thursday with U.S. Representative Dan Newhouse, he was feeling pretty confident about a USMCA Senate vote … NEWHOUSE … “Yeah, I’m excited to hear about that possibility. It could be as soon as next week. I understand that the Senate could be having their final vote. So, that’s great news. I hope it happens.” But even then, Newhouse knew there was one big possibility that could get in the way … NEWHOUSE … “The only bump in the road that I can see is if the Speaker of the House decides to send the Articles of Impeachment over to the Senate and then, I believe, the rules are that they have to take them up immediately” And now, word is, that’s likely to happen … NEWHOUSE … “And so that could potentially postpone their consideration of the USMCA so we’ll wait and see. But, like I said before, I was confident that the Senate would get to it as soon as they could and that they would pass the new agreement and it looks like that’s exactly what’s going to happen.” On Friday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced she would be sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate this week.If it doesn’t pass before impeachment, its thumpedSteven T. Dennis, Erik Wasson, and Jenny Leonard, 1-14-2020, "Senate GOP Aims to Vote on USMCA Trade Deal This Week," Bloomberg, Republicans are attempting to pass the stalled U.S. trade deal with Mexico and Canada this week before President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial begins. Several GOP senators said they were being told there is a push on by Republican leadership to take the vote this week. Senator Rob Portman, a Republican from Ohio, said there is a chance that the Senate could vote on the USMCA deal as soon as Thursday. Several Senate committees have advanced the bill to implement the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement that the House passed last month. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell initially said he wouldn’t take up the USMCA until after the impeachment trial, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi‘s delay in sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate created an opening to accelerate the vote on the trade deal. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee changed its hearing from Thursday to Wednesday to act more quickly on the trade agreement, and the Senate Appropriations Committee plans to act on the same day.USMCA—No ImpactLittle to no impact of USMCA passageFrank Connor, 1-7-2020, "USMCA will have a minimal impact on economic growth: Harvard economist," Fox Business, destined to pass through?the Senate, but one economist is skeptical of the impact it will actually have. “Certainly it is not going to have a big effect on our growth at all,” Harvard economist and former IMF chief economist Kenneth Rogoff told FOX Business’ Maria Bartiromo. He argued that the agreement is much more beneficial to Mexico than it is to the United States where the effects will be “pretty marginal.” The agreement has some good points, such as its new environmental standards, however, its restrictions on manufacturing imports are “counterproductive,” according to Rogoff.Politics--Elections Disads—Can Go Both WaysImpeachment ThumpsIowa is partisan-ly divided on impeachmentJustin Wise, 1-12-2020, "Iowa voters split on Trump impeachment, poll shows," TheHill, voters are almost equally divided over the House's move to impeach President Trump and make him just the third president in U.S. history to face removal by the Senate, according to a new CNN/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll. The survey, released late Saturday, found that 45 percent of registered Iowa voters disapprove of the House impeachment of Trump, while 43 percent support it. The opinions divide strongly along partisan lines, with 87 percent of Democrats supporting impeachment and 90 percent of Republican respondents opposing it. Forty-eight percent of independent respondents said they disapproved the House's move to impeach Trump while 39 percent said they approved it. Progressive groups are targeting vulnerable Republican Senators on ImpeachmentJustine Coleman, 1-8-2020, "Progressive groups target eight GOP senators in ad campaign ahead of impeachment trial," TheHill, progressive groups are taking aim at eight senators in a $400,000 ad campaign announced Wednesday, ahead of the Senate impeachment trial. Daily Kos, MoveOn, Need to Impeach and Public Citizen are setting up digital ads, mobile billboards and field campaigns in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, North Carolina and Utah, according to a press release from the groups. These ads encourage people to contact their senators to demand a “fair impeachment trial” and to vote to convict President Trump. The groups' campaign specifically targets and names Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Martha McSally (R-Ariz.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Mitt Romney (R-Utah). The groups plan to run their material through Saturday but their run time could be extended as the Senate impeachment proceedings move forward. The mobile billboard from three of the groups, Daily Kos, MoveOn and Need to Impeach, says, “Trump broke the law. Senator Romney, don’t help him cover it up. Vote to convict & remove,” for Utah. The digital ad also addresses one of the state’s senators saying, “America demands a fair trial.” Daily Kos, MoveOn and Public Citizen have also hired field organizers in the targeted states. The groups said in the release that they will announce the next strategies in the coming days and weeks.Obama-Trump swing voters are angry at McConnell for false impeachment remarksTravis Gettys, 1-13-2020, "Obama-Trump swing voters are furious at ‘biased’ Mitch McConnell: report," RawStory, voters are sick of impeachment — but they aren’t happy with Senate Majority Mitch McConnell’s handling of the trial. A focus group of Pennsylvania voters who backed Barack Obama in 2012 but voted for President Donald Trump in 2016 indicated they didn’t like McConnell pledging that he couldn’t be an “impartial juror,” and they believe that will ultimately hurt the president, reported Axios. “That was a terrible statement to make publicly,” said swing voter Don E. “He’s proven that he’s biased. He’s working with the White House, per se. He has to be impartial, that’s what the Constitution says in this situation, that he has to be impartial.” None of the 11 participants disagreed with Don’s view, and at least two of them said McConnell’s comments gave Democrats “talking points” to keep pushing even if Trump survived impeachment.Iran ThumpsTrump’s Iran strategy will lose him the 2020 electionJeremy W. Peters, 1-13-2020, "Trump’s Iran Strategy May Cost Him in 2020 Election," No Publication, , Iowa — Almost exactly four years ago, Donald J. Trump touched down at an airport hangar here, delivered a donation to a group that provides service dogs to veterans and, before inviting a few kids to run around on his Boeing 757, criticized the wars in the Middle East that many local families had sent their sons and daughters to fight in. “I’m the guy that didn’t want to go to war,” he told a crowd of several hundred. “It’s just unjust, it’s a mess,” Mr. Trump went on, promising that if he ever did deploy the military anywhere, it would be “so strong, so powerful that nobody is going to mess with us anymore.” That November, Dubuque County voted Republican in the presidential election for the first time since 1956, when Dwight Eisenhower was on the ballot. Mr. Trump’s success in places like Dubuque — heavily white, working class, union-friendly and Catholic — remade the Republican electorate. And his path to a second term depends heavily on whether those voters turn their backs on the Democratic Party again. But the specter of a new conflict in the Middle East — this time with Iran — threatens the political coalition that Mr. Trump built in 2016 by running against a national Republican Party that many voters came to see as indifferent and unresponsive, particularly when it came to the human cost of war. “All he’s been saying is, ‘We’re getting out of there, we’re getting out of there, we’re getting out of there,’” said Mark Blume, a contractor in Dubuque who stopped into the local American Legion after work one evening last week for a beer. Mr. Blume, who was raised in a Democratic household in New York and said he voted for Republicans and Democrats in presidential elections but did not vote for either Mr. Trump or Hillary Clinton in 2016, expressed fatigue with the president’s erratic style. If it weren’t for that, he would be less uncertain about voting for Mr. Trump, who he believes has done a better than expected job as president. “He’s putting those kids in harm’s way,” Mr. Blume added. “What he says and what he does are two different things, and that’s what I don’t like about him.” (In fact, Mr. Trump did not always oppose going to war with Iraq as he has insisted; he initially expressed support for it after the invasion began in 2003.)Dems Inevitably DividedSanders and Warren will divide the liberal wing before the Iowa CaucusReid J. Epstein, Sydney Ember and Alexander Burns, 1-15-2020, "Warren Told Sanders After Debate, ‘I Think You Called Me a Liar on National TV’," No Publication, MOINES — The sudden clash between Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders over gender and honesty injected new uncertainty into the Democratic presidential race, after the broadcast on Wednesday evening of a recording that showed Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders trading accusations that each had called the other a “liar.” With less than three weeks before the first-in-the-nation caucuses in Iowa, the breakdown of a longstanding nonaggression pact between the two leading liberals in the race cast doubt on whether Mr. Sanders, of Vermont, or Ms. Warren, of Massachusetts, can unite the Democratic Party’s liberal wing. Polls in Iowa and New Hampshire have found all of the top candidates — Mr. Sanders, Ms. Warren, former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. — bunched up in the earliest Democratic contests, though Mr. Biden has held a steady national lead, helped to a great degree by divisions on the left. ? ? The rupture, which has already angered supporters of both Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders, could heighten Democratic anxieties and inject negativity into the race in Iowa, where Democrats had a history of rewarding positive behavior from presidential candidates. “I think you called me a liar on national TV,” Ms. Warren told Mr. Sanders after the presidential debate in Des Moines on Tuesday night, referring to their earlier dispute onstage over whether he told her in a private 2018 meeting that a woman could not be president. The New York Times described details of their exchange on Wednesday afternoon, and CNN broadcast an audio recording that night. According to the audio, Mr. Sanders responded, “What?” “I think you called me a liar on national TV,” she said again. “You know, let’s not do it right now,” he said. “If you want to have that discussion, we’ll have that discussion.” Ms. Warren replied, “Anytime.” “You called me a liar,” Mr. Sanders said. “You told me — all right, let’s not do it now.”Politics--ImpeachmentNo Action until TuesdayNothing will happen until Tuesday for ImpeachmentClarissa-Jan Lim, 1-16-2020, "Trump's Impeachment Trial Proceedings Have Begun," BuzzFeed News, groups of four, the senators were called forward to sign an oath book. Roberts then adjourned the Senate until 1 p.m. on Tuesday. The Senate now delivers notice to Trump, summoning him to trial. Thursday's procedure was largely ceremonial; the real action will start next week, when the Senate returns after the long weekend and votes on rules for the trial. Under current impeachment rules, the trial will run Monday through Saturday every week. It may go on for several weeks.Schumer will force a vote on witnesses and evidence on TuesdayMarianne Levine, 1-16-2020, "Impeachment trial will kick off with battle over witnesses," POLITICO, impeachment trial of President Donald Trump is now underway. And it's going to move fast. Just an hour after senators were sworn in, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he will likely force votes on witnesses on Tuesday — setting up a contentious fight when the Senate returns from the three-day weekend. Senate Democrats have called for subpoenaing four witnesses, including former Trump national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. "We expect that we will have votes on these witnesses on Tuesday but can't be sure until we see the resolution that McConnell has put together," said Schumer on Thursday, who lambasted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for not sharing the text of the trial procedures with Democrats. "It's amazing that at this moment we still haven't seen it," he said. But their calls for agreeing to hear witnesses at the outset of the trial have been rebuffed by McConnell. The GOP majority's trial blueprint kicks the question of whether to hear witnesses until after House managers and the president's defense present their case.If there is a Witness Vote…Rand Paul = WildRand Paul will create a spectacle during a vote on witnesses, could thump senate electionsBurgess Everett, 1-15-2020, "Rand Paul threatens fellow Republicans with explosive witness votes," POLITICO, . Rand Paul is waging a fierce campaign to prevent the Senate from hearing witnesses in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, vowing to force tough votes on his fellow Republicans if they break with the president or back Democrats' demands for new evidence. The Kentucky Republican is occasionally at odds with Trump, from his killing of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani to his national emergency to build his southern border wall. But when it comes to impeachment, Paul is taking the hardest line possible in Trump’s favor. Paul says if four or more of his GOP colleagues join with Democrats to entertain new witness testimony, he will make the Senate vote on subpoenaing the president’s preferred witnesses, including Hunter Biden and the whistleblower who revealed the Ukraine scandal — polarizing picks who moderate Republicans aren’t eager to call. So he has a simple message for his party: end the trial before witnesses are called. “If you vote against Hunter Biden, you’re voting to lose your election, basically. Seriously. That’s what it is,” Paul said during an interview in his office on Wednesday. “If you don’t want to vote and you think you’re going to have to vote against Hunter Biden, you should just vote against witnesses, period.”Politics--Impeachment Disads—Nuts and BoltsDismiss Vote—Will FailThe Motion to Dismiss will failLisa Mascaro et.al, Alan Fram, Mary Clare Jalonick and Laurie Kellman, 1-14-2020, "GOP senators reject plans to dismiss Trump impeachment," No Publication, (AP) — Senate Republicans signaled Monday they would reject the idea of simply voting to dismiss the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump as the House prepares to send the charges to the chamber for the historic trial. “I think our members, generally are not interested in the motion to dismiss. They think both sides need to be heard,” said Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., who is part of GOP leadership. It will be only the third presidential impeachment trial in American history, a serious and dramatic endeavor coming amid the backdrop of a politically divided nation and the start of an election year. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not set the timing for the House vote that will launch the Senate action. Trump was impeached by the Democratic-led House last month on charges of abuse of power over pushing Ukraine to investigate Democratic rival Joe Biden and obstruction of Congress in the probe. Democrats said the vote could be Wednesday. With the impeachment trial starting in a matter of days, senators are still debating the rules of the proceedings. GOP senators are conferring privately about whether to allow a motion to dismiss the charges against the president or to call additional witnesses for testimony. Trump suggested over the weekend he might prefer simply dismissing the charges rather than giving legitimacy to charges from the House, which he considers a “hoax.” It was an extraordinary suggestion, but one being proposed by Trump allies with support from some GOP senators, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. But it is clear McConnell does not have the votes needed from his GOP majority to do that. One key Republican, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, said she too would oppose a motion to dismiss the charges.Dismissal motion will failJordain Carney, 1-13-2020, "GOP leadership: There aren't 51 votes to dismiss Trump articles of impeachment," TheHill, Blunt?(R-Mo.) told reporters on Monday that the Senate Republican caucus doesn't have the votes to dismiss the articles of impeachment against President Trump, who endorsed an "outright dismissal" over the weekend. "I think our members generally are not interested in a motion to dismiss. ... Certainly there aren't 51 votes for a motion to dismiss," Blunt, the No. 4 Senate Republican, told reporters after a closed-door leadership meeting. Republicans have warned for months that they will not dismiss the two articles of impeachment against Trump, predicting a trial will end with votes on either acquitting or convicting him. But Trump revived talk of trying to dismiss the articles over the weekend,?saying the Senate was "giving credence" to the allegations against him?by having a trial.Senate—Rule ChangesThe GOP has several moderates who will call for more witnesses and evidenceBen Tracy, 1-14-2020, "White House expects GOP defections on calling witnesses in Senate impeachment trial," No Publication, —?The White House is preparing for some Republican senators to join Democrats in voting to call witnesses in President Trump's impeachment trial, which could get underway in the coming days. Senior White House officials tell CBS News they increasingly believe that at least four Republicans, and likely more, will vote to call witnesses. In addition to Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Mitt Romney of Utah and possibly Cory Gardner of Colorado, the White House also views Rand Paul of Kentucky as a "wild card" and Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee as an "institutionalist" who might vote to call witnesses, as one official put it. Last week, Collins said she was working with a "fairly small group" of GOP senators to allow new testimony, adding that her colleagues "should be completely open to calling witnesses." Romney has expressed an interest in hearing from former national security adviser?John Bolton, who has said he would testify under subpoena. Murkowski said last week that the Senate should proceed as it did during the 1999 Clinton impeachment trial.?Democrats only need 4 Republicans for motions to call witnesses to passBen Tracy, 1-14-2020, "White House expects GOP defections on calling witnesses in Senate impeachment trial," No Publication, both said the Senate trial should be fair and impartial.?Paul has said?the president should be able to call his own witnesses, including the whistleblower whose complaint about Ukraine sparked the impeachment inquiry in the first place. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the question of whether to call new witnesses in the trial would be decided by the full Senate after the trial gets underway. A simple majority of 51 votes will be needed to approve motions to call witnesses, meaning Democrats would need to convince four out of the 53 Republicans in the Senate to vote with them to compel testimony. The House is expected to vote this week on a resolution to name impeachment managers and transmit the two articles to the Senate, a necessary step before the trial can begin. Democrats had previously demanded McConnell agree to allow testimony from witnesses, including four administration officials, before transmitting the articles.4 Republicans are on board—Alexander, Collins, Murkowski and RomneyBilly House, 1-14-2020, "Fourth GOP Senator Wants Vote on Witnesses: Impeachment Update," Bloomberg, Senator Lamar Alexander said Tuesday he wants a guaranteed vote during the trial on whether senators will hear from new witnesses and see additional documents. “First we need to hear the case -- not dismiss the case, we need to hear it,” said Alexander of Tennessee, who plans to retire after this session of Congress. “That means hear the arguments, ask our questions and then be guaranteed a right to vote on whether we need more evidence.” “And that could be witnesses, it could be documents,” Alexander said. “I’ll reserve that decision until I hear the case and I ask questions.” Alexander is the fourth GOP senator to publicly speak in favor of hearing new evidence during Trump’s trial. Four GOP votes would be needed to join the 47 Democrats to make a majority in favor of calling witnesses. A day earlier, GOP Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah said they wanted to ensure there will be an opportunity to vote on calling witnesses or other information later in the trial.Trial UpdatesIt is slated to start probably next TuesdayClare Foran et al., Lauren Fox, Ellie Kaufman and Ali Zaslav, Cnn, 1-14-2020, "Senate prepares for impeachment trial to start next week," CNN, (CNN)With Speaker Nancy Pelosi poised to transmit two articles of impeachment out of the House, the Senate is getting ready for a trial to start next week. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters on Tuesday that the Senate impeachment trial will likely begin a week from now with preliminary steps taking place in the coming days given that the House is set to vote to send the articles of impeachment and appoint House managers to present the case against the President on Wednesday. "The House is likely to finally send the articles over to us tomorrow and we'll be able to, we believe, if that happens in all likelihood go through some preliminary steps here this week, which could well include the Chief Justice coming over and swearing in members of the Senate and some other kind of housekeeping measures," McConnell said. "We hope to be able to achieve that by consent, which would set us up to begin the actual trial next Tuesday." McConnell walked his conference through what they can expect to see in the Senate resolution during Tuesday's policy lunch, according to a Republican senator who spoke to CNN on background to avoid sharing internal party deliberations.Politics Links—NegMembers of Congress Have Large Defense HoldingsMembers of congress are profiteering off of arms sales, 51 members own more than 2.3 million a piece in defense stocksDonald Shaw, 1-13-2020, "The Members of Congress Who Profit From War," Sludge, was shortly after midnight in Baghdad on Friday, Jan. 3, when a missile strike ordered by President Trump killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. When stock markets opened the next day, dozens of members of Congress saw bumps in their portfolios as their holdings in defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon increased in value on the possibility of war. Over the next three trading days, the leading defense industry stock index would surge 2.4% above Thursday’s close. Among these members of Congress with personal investments in the defense industry are several who sit on committees that determine major sources of funding for defense companies and weapons contractors. According to a Sludge review of financial disclosures, 51 members of Congress and their spouses own between $2.3 and $5.8 million worth of stocks in companies that are among the top 30 defense contractors in the world. Members of Congress generally report the values of their investments in ranges, so it’s not possible to know exactly how much their stocks are worth. As Congress debates whether to limit President Trump’s power to take military action against Iran, the complete list of senators and representatives who own defense stocks are displayed below in this article. Eighteen members of Congress, combined, own as much as $760,000 worth of stock of Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest defense contractor in terms of overall defense revenues. The value of Lockheed Martin stock surged by?4.3%?on the day after Soleimani’s assassination—a day in which the Dow Jones Industrial Average overall traded down. ?The Defense Subcommittee in the Senate and the House Foreign Affairs Committee has stock owners of defense stocksDonald Shaw, 1-13-2020, "The Members of Congress Who Profit From War," Sludge, the Senate, nearly one-third of the members of the Defense Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee own stocks in top defense contractors. The subcommittee is in charge of drafting the procurement section of the annual Defense spending bill, which allocates funding for the Defense Department and specifies weapons systems and other goods for the department to purchase from private contractors. In the 2020 Defense appropriations bill, the subcommittee approved $1.85 billion for 18 more F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircrafts and spare parts from Lockheed Martin. Subcommittee member Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) owns as much as $100,000 worth of stock in Lockheed Martin. The subcommittee also recommended $1.1 billion for 6 P-8A Poseidon aircraft, which is a maritime patrol and reconnaissance plane made by Boeing. Subcommittee members Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) own as much as a combined $750,000 in Boeing stock. A spokesperson for Feinstein, whose husband owns as much as $650,000 worth of Boeing stock, told Sludge that the senator “has no involvement in her husband’s financial and business decisions,” adding that “the senator’s assets are in a blind trust, which has been the case since her arrival in the Senate.” The House Foreign Affairs Committee oversees arms controls and exports, yet at least four of its members have investments in defense companies whose foreign sales fall under their jurisdiction. Congress owns a lot of defense stocks!!Tom Mckay, 01-13-2020, "Report: 51 Members of Congress and Their Spouses Collectively Own Millions in Defense Stocks," Gizmodo, members of Congress or their spouses own between $2.8 million to $5.3 million worth of stock in the top 30 defense contractors worldwide, Sludge reported on Monday, thus placing them in a position to potentially profit from the U.S. military contracting process or wars waged with the firms’ equipment. According to Sludge, the data was compiled by having a bot sift through financial disclosure forms hosted on the House and Senate websites; the $2.5 million gap between the upper and lower estimates is because many members of Congress only report in ranges. 18 of the congresspeople collectively own up to $760,000 in Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest defense contractor by revenue, and which surged 4.3 percent after the Trump administration assassinated a top Iranian official by drone earlier this month, Sludge wrote. According to the review, nearly one-third of the Senate Appropriations subcomittee for defense spending—which regularly reviews big-ticket expenditures in the billions of dollars for the U.S. military—own stocks in big contractors. Four members of the House Foreign Affairs committee, which approves arms sales, have stock in companies that must seek their approval to sell weaponry and other military equipment to foreigners. That list includes Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, and General Dynamics, per Sludge. The investments appear to be broadly bipartisan. In the Senate, Dianne Feinstein ($650,000), Sheldon Whitehouse ($348,998), John Hoeven ($250,000), Tom Carper ($130,000), Rick Scott ($106,000), Susan Collins ($101,000), Roy Blunt ($100,000), and David Perdue ($100,000) top the list. In the House, Steve Cohen ($415,000), Gerry Connolly ($400,000), Ro Khanna ($376,000), Greg Gianforte ($309,856), Debbie Dingell ($300,000), Phil Roe ($203,230), Fred Upton ($155,000), Bob Gibbs ($150,000), Joe Kennedy ($150,000), Kevin Hern ($150,000), Francis Rooney ($135,000), and David Joyce, David Price, and Thomas Suozzi ($100,000 each) come in on top. Spokespeople for members of Congress contacted by Sludge said their or their spouses’ investments in defense contractors do not affect their decision-making. Senator Feinstein’s office told the site that she “has no involvement in her husband’s financial and business decisions” and that the $650,000 in Boeing stock belonging to her spouse was managed by a blind trust. Representative Ro Khanna, whose wife holds $376,000 in stock from seven defense companies, told Sludge that he has “not personally invested in any defense stocks” and has “consistently voted against bloated defense spending and sought accountability from some of our nation’s largest defense contractors.”Politics---AT-Impeachment CP2AC1. This CP is either Terminally non-unique or empirically denied. The GAO just reported that Trump’s actions in Ukraine violated the lawEmily Cochrane, Eric Lipton and Chris Cameron, 1-17-2020, "G.A.O. Report Says Trump Administration Broke Law in Withholding Ukraine Aid," No Publication, — Hours before the Senate embarked on President Trump’s?impeachment trial, a nonpartisan federal watchdog agency unexpectedly weighed in on an issue at the heart of the case: the president’s decision to withhold military assistance to Ukraine. The agency, the Government Accountability Office, said the White House’s Office of Management and Budget violated the law when it withheld nearly $400 million this past summer for “a policy reason,” even though the funds had been allocated by Congress. The decision to freeze the aid was directed by the president himself, and during the House impeachment inquiry, administration officials testified that they had raised concerns about its legality to no avail. “Faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the accountability office wrote in an opinion released Thursday. “The withholding was not a programmatic delay.” The law at issue, the Impoundment Control Act, was enacted in 1974. It limits a president’s power to withhold money that has been allocated by Congress, requiring approval from the legislative branch to do so. The accountability office is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. It conducts audits of federal spending, issues legal decisions on questions about federal contracts and budget matters and examines if federal agencies are complying with other legal requirements imposed on them by Congress.2. Republicans won’t change course after the GAO decisionEmily Cochrane, Eric Lipton and Chris Cameron, 1-17-2020, "G.A.O. Report Says Trump Administration Broke Law in Withholding Ukraine Aid," No Publication, Richard C. Shelby, Republican of Alabama and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, called the release of the report as the Senate was taking up impeachment “suspicious timing.” Accountability office officials said the timing of the ruling was coincidental. “Our legal decisions are issued when we have completed all our legal research and are ready to come to a sound conclusion,” Thomas H. Armstrong, the office’s general counsel, said in a statement. “There was no coordination of timing with any entity outside of G.A.O.” The White House budget office promptly rejected the report’s conclusions, saying it had remained within the law. “We disagree with G.A.O.’s opinion,” said Rachel Semmel, a spokeswoman for the budget office. “O.M.B. uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the president’s priorities and with the law.”3. More EvidenceSteve Benen, 1-17-2020, "Republicans get creative to downplay finding of Trump illegality," MSNBC, part of its report, the agency emphasized that the executive branch can’t block funds appropriated by Congress, even when legitimate policy differences drive the decision. In this sense, even if one is inclined to believe the pretextual White House argument – Trump has a deep and abiding concern about “corruption” in Kyiv – the administration’s tactic was still illegal. Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), currently in his 45th year on Capitol Hill, said yesterday in reference to the GAO’s findings, “I have never seen such a damning report in my life…. I read it twice…. To have something saying this is such a total disrespect of the law. It’s unprecedented.” Republicans didn’t quite see it the same way. Indeed, the question wasn’t whether Trump’s GOP allies would downplay the findings; the question was how they’d dismiss the determination that Trump broke the law. Politico highlighted one of my favorites: Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) went further, arguing that GAO got it wrong when the agency concluded the White House violated the Impoundment Control Act by declining to notify Congress of the delay in appropriated funds. “I think they misunderstand the law. I think presidents withhold money all the time, move money around,” Paul said. “I think there’s a great deal of latitude to what presidents do. So I think they’ve misinterpreted the law.” Well, that’s certainly one way to look at the scandal. After all, who are you going to trust to do a proper legal analysis of the Impoundment Control Act: the auditors and lawyers at the Government Accountability Office, whose job it is to make these kinds of determinations, or the legal opinions of a self-accredited ophthalmologist turned politician? All joking aside, the Washington Post noted a slightly more substantive effort from another prominent GOP senator. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) tried to separate Trump from the GAO’s findings, arguing that “obviously it is not directed at the president; it’s the Office of Management and Budget, with whom I’ve had a few disagreements over the years about the withholding of money that’s been appropriated by Congress.” […] “The GAO report identifies the OMB, not the president, and it says it was for ‘policy reasons,’ not for political reasons…. I don’t think that changes anything.” What a curious perspective. Yes, Cornyn concedes, the Government Accountability Office scrutinized the administration’s scheme. And yes, the Texas Republican acknowledged, the investigators determined that the scheme was illegal. But, Cornyn argues, the GAO points specifically to the actions of the White House Office of Management and Budget, which executed the plan. It’s why the senator is comfortable concluding that the findings point to a problem with OMB, not the Oval Office. And this might actually be a terrific argument if there were any evidence that the White House Office of Management and Budget had gone rogue and started making illegal decisions all on its own. But in reality, we know the opposite is true: OMB was acting at the “clear direction” of the president. It was Trump’s illegal scheme that the budget office implemented, and Trump’s devotees who are looking for excuses not to care.4. Turn--Prospect of conviction leads to nuclear first use and extinction Oppenheimer 19 – prof @ NYU School of Professional Studies Center for Global Affairs, life member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Senior Consulting Fellow for scenario planning at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (Michael, “Will Trump risk war to save his presidency?” The Hill, )Lost — temporally — in the Cohen testimony and the predictable collapse of the nuclear talks with North Korea, is the lesson we need to learn from the fabricated Mexican border ‘crisis’ and fake national emergency. It is this: President Trump is prepared to inflict lasting damage on the country to save his presidency. As we try to impose fact and law on immigration policy, we need to apply this lesson in contemplating Trump’s next desperate act. The most worrisome scenario is a real but still manageable external crisis that arrives at a moment when escalation is in Trump’s political interest. Response mismanagement would fuel the crisis, but the real threat is a president motivated to hype a real crisis that his chaotic administration will be unable to control. Such a possibility has risen from Hollywood cliché to serious risk and the odds of a "wag the dog" dynamic are increasing. Trump is in a deep hole and digging furiously. The political benefits of the wall will prove transitory, as construction bogs down in the courts and the latest caravan melts away. Between Mueller, mounting congressional scrutiny, low poll numbers, Republican desertions, further indictments of family and friends, impeachment (if not conviction) and an approaching election, the temptation to change the subject and rally his base by hyping an external threat could become irresistible. Backed into a corner and politically wounded, we can expect neither rational nor well-intentioned behavior from the president. Unlike the slow moving and artificial crisis over the border, a real national security crisis, provoked by Trump or not, will move rapidly, present high, possibly existential risk, involve complexity, uncertainty and unintended negative consequences from ill-conceived policy choices. Consider Berlin blockades, Soviet missiles in Cuba, several global financial and economic crises, 9/11. Few presidents have avoided such perils and their presidencies — and the future of the country — have been defined by their responses. Such episodes are exacting tests of precisely those qualities lacking in the Trump Administration: the rigor of policy process, the knowledge and skill of advisors, the confidence and mutual respect among and between policy and intelligence officials and the calmness of the president. Even with the best of intentions and effort, presidential performance has varied widely over our recent history. At the extremes, JFK’s skillful management of the missile crisis produced a peaceful resolution, Soviet capitulation, an improved period in U.S.-Soviet relations and enhanced political standing for the president. George W. Bush’s response to 9/11 was to invade Iraq, arguably the worst strategic mistake since Vietnam and still paying negative dividends for ourselves and the Middle East. We face an oversupply of potential crises and all offer ample opportunities for a president prepared to distort and manipulate external threats for political purposes. Iran could give up on the JCPOA and resume its nuclear program, reinforcing Iran-Israel conflict arising out of Syria and offering an opportunity for U.S. intervention; internal conflict in Venezuela could worsen and be attributed to hostile external influences; territorial disputes in the South and East China Seas could lead to a direct clash between U.S. and Chinese forces, as could a crisis precipitated by a Chinese move against Taiwan; there could be dangerous fallout from the failed nuclear negotiation with North Korea; Russia could move more boldly into Ukraine. Some might challenge the likelihood of this scenario, based on Trump’s announcements (not yet implemented) of troop withdrawals from Syria and Afghanistan, but his support for military restraint is not likely to survive his first exploitable crisis. His apparent preference for restraint is not the product of experience or deep conviction and-to his and our great fortune-has not yet been tested by crisis. His two closest advisors, Pompeo and Bolton, look favorably on the use of force to promote American interests and are spoiling for a fight with Iran. The Bush precedent is instructive. An inexperienced president entered office with a declared preference for restraint in the use of force, opposition to nation building and support for collective action with allies. He then did a complete about-face in reaction to 9/11 and followed his neocon advisors into a unilateral, regime changing, nation building disaster in Iraq. We must all recognize the problem we’re dealing with and get out in front of the dangers. Our president is a willful and heedless man who is personally inclined and politically motivated to seize any opportunity available to save his presidency. Managing a future crisis, even if he had the capacity, will not be his priority. Capitalizing on it will be. Internal constraints on his behavior have all but disappeared and the enlarged presence of hard right advisors in his inner circle will generate further impetus towards escalation, especially if Iran provides the provocation. Our priority — in the public, the Congress, the press — is not to improve the administration’s decision-making skills, but to contain Trump’s instincts for doing harm. We must reassert congressional war powers, require intelligence community confirmation of the factual basis of any administration war narrative, insist on defense department assessment of our capacity to carry out presidential policy preferences, place limits on the president’s authority to launch first use of nuclear weapons, scrutinize administration policy on emerging conflicts through public or closed hearings and — for the press — aggressively cover the administration’s reaction to emerging potential crises.5. Grab more from the impeachment folder ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download