foreignpolicy--2020-06-12--How to Rethink the Teaching of International Relations

How to Rethink the Teaching of International Relations Three decades ago , university public-policy and international-affairs programs shifted from teaching about the Cold War rivalry to engaging in discussions about the potential for democracy promotion , the impact of assistance programs in building mutual prosperity , and the onset of globalization ( which in the 1990s had mostly positive connotations ) .
Those graduating from such programs entered a world in which the disruptions caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union created numerous opportunities .
Today ’ s pandemic poses a similar chance for a reset , as universities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have on their students .
Like their colleagues throughout higher education , those overseeing graduate programs in international affairs and public policy have a great deal of work to do to prepare for the coming academic year .
In the midst of planning for the range of reopening scenarios being discussed—including a mix of on-campus and online formats—they should consider five key elements : curriculum , communication , costs , careers , and community .
First , curriculum : What are schools teaching and how are they teaching it ?
The Black Lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States and around the world since the police murder of George Floyd are a reminder that race is central to studying international affairs .
As political scientist Meredith Loken has argued , “ Race is not a ‘ perspective ’ on IR to spend a week considering in class .
Race is integral to the modern state system , to diplomacy , conflict , trade , global governance .
Race is key to understanding how IR theory developed and consequent policy prescriptions.
” Beyond race , climate change , rising economic inequalities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broken supply chains , future pandemics , and more will continue to reshape global affairs .
Schools should address these coming disruptions by emphasizing risk management , ethics training , responses to inequality and racial injustice , teamwork , integrated problem solving , and program evaluation .
A major challenge in the midst of the pandemic , of course , is not just rethinking what schools teach but how to deliver that curriculum .
Even in the most optimistic scenarios for the coming academic year , at least some of the teaching will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ require departments to rethink the fundamental essence of the courses they teach .
Long lectures will not work via Zoom .
Intimate , fully in-person seminars may fail in an era of social distancing .
Assignments will have to change .
Schools must figure out how to accommodate differences in connectivity and accessibility .
Posting large video files behind multiple firewalls will exclude some of the very students the hybrid models being discussed are designed to include .
COVID-19 challenges schools to think through how teaching and learning occur in this environment and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these traditional methods of teaching change , schools must communicate their new tactics and involve students in the planning process .
Programs need to find ways to collect student input and increase their sense of involvement in how they are taught in the coming year .
Not knowing what is to come will be worse—for the students and for their continued engagement with the school—than disagreements about the plans ultimately chosen .
If universities must depart from the traditional on-campus education many students had planned on , administrators need to explain they will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help the students achieve their goals .
And for those still debating whether now is the right time to start their education , schools must communicate what can be distinctive about studying international affairs and policy now that can not be done any other time—even if students must sacrifice the in-person element .
If students can ’ t attend class in person , universities will have to rethink their tuition prices .
They have to demonstrate that administrators , faculty and staff are working hard with students to deliver quality education and services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ costs are the same , or why they are different .
Schools will likely have different conversations about tuition and fees .
Tuition remains an investment .
Fees can range from extra costs for the library to charges for using the gym .
The libraries will still play a critical role in teaching and research , given the online databases and availability of the research librarians .
No one , of course , should be paying a gym fee if they can ’ t use the facility .
Schools will have to demonstrate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next level , which brings us to careers .
Students who pursue graduate degrees in international affairs range from those just starting their careers to those looking to enhance their careers to those seeking to change careers .
So schools will need to continue to invest and expand access to career services .
Career offices need to be prepared for both an influx of searchers—those who turned to graduate school without another option in a global economic downturn—as well as those whose best-laid plans went awry with the cancellation of internships and delays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experiencing hiring freezes and cutbacks , investment in these critical career services can not stop .
Career offices play an important role in recruitment and in fundraising , too .
When selecting a graduate program , students regularly focus on career outcomes .
Research shows that the level of graduate career services has a large impact on future alumni donor activity .
Even in times of tight finances , investments in career services are critical for both the students and the institution .
Finally , there is the fifth C : community .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the fall of 2019 had one and a half semesters or two academic quarters together in person before the pandemic took everything remote .
Come fall , many cohorts may start only online .
Schools are talking about trying to do some on-campus learning , at least for those students already in the area .
Focus first on short , in-person community-building events with proper social distancing or rotating small groups of students for those who can participate .
Expand online office hours and virtual small group sessions , so that remote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faculty and one another .
The incoming class will always remember that they were part of the COVID-19 cohort .
There is already that bond , so thinking creatively about ways to build on that will help the students , staff , and faculty maintain the exceptional learning environment that international-affairs schools have long provided .
This will be particularly true for students who require visas to pursue their studies .
International students make up an average of 40 percent of the student body in programs in the Association of Professional Schools of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the percentage is much higher .
For those international students who will not be able to return to campus in the fall , virtual community building activities and social spaces must be created to help them gather and connect .
Issues of international affairs and policy are on display in everyone ’ s lives during this global crisis .
Students may flock to international-affairs schools because they want to make a difference in this new world .
The choices schools make in their curriculum , communication , costs , career services , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that will make them glad they pursued graduate education in this field—even during a pandemic .

James Goldgeier and Carmen Iezzi Mezzera

Three decades ago, university public-policy and international-affairs programs shifted from teaching about the Cold War rivalry to engaging in discussions about the potential for democracy promotion , the impact of assistance programs in building mutual prosperity, and the onset of globalization (which in the 1990s had mostly positive connotations ). Those graduating from such programs entered a world in which the disruptions caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union created numerous opportunities.
Three decades ago, university public-policy and international-affairs programs shifted from teaching about the Cold War rivalry to engaging in discussions about the potential for democracy promotion, the impact of assistance programs in building mutual prosperity, and the onset of globalization (which in the 1990s had mostly positive connotations). Those graduating from such programs entered a world in which the disruptions caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union created numerous opportunities.
Today’s pandemic poses a similar chance for a reset, as universities explore the impact massive global disruptions will have on their students. Like their colleagues throughout higher education, those overseeing graduate programs in international affairs and public policy have a great deal of work to do to prepare for the coming academic year. In the midst of planning for the range of reopening scenarios being discussed—including a mix of on-campus and online formats—they should consider five key elements: curriculum, communication, costs, careers, and community.
First, curriculum: What are schools teaching and how are they teaching it? The Black Lives Matter protests that have erupted across the United States and around the world since the police murder of George Floyd are a reminder that race is central to studying international affairs. As political scientist Meredith Loken has argued, “Race is not a ‘perspective’ on IR to spend a week considering in class. Race is integral to the modern state system, to diplomacy, conflict, trade, global governance. Race is key to understanding how IR theory developed and consequent policy prescriptions.” Beyond race, climate change, rising economic inequalities, artificial intelligence, great-power competition, broken supply chains, future pandemics, and more will continue to reshape global affairs. Schools should address these coming disruptions by emphasizing risk management, ethics training, responses to inequality and racial injustice, teamwork, integrated problem solving, and program evaluation.
A major challenge in the midst of the pandemic, of course, is not just rethinking what schools teach but how to deliver that curriculum. Even in the most optimistic scenarios for the coming academic year, at least some of the teaching will continue online. Managing this shift will require departments to rethink the fundamental essence of the courses they teach. Long lectures will not work via Zoom. Intimate, fully in-person seminars may fail in an era of social distancing. Assignments will have to change. Schools must figure out how to accommodate differences in connectivity and accessibility. Posting large video files behind multiple firewalls will exclude some of the very students the hybrid models being discussed are designed to include. COVID-19 challenges schools to think through how teaching and learning occur in this environment and what they can reasonably deliver.
As these traditional methods of teaching change, schools must communicate their new tactics and involve students in the planning process. Programs need to find ways to collect student input and increase their sense of involvement in how they are taught in the coming year. Not knowing what is to come will be worse—for the students and for their continued engagement with the school—than disagreements about the plans ultimately chosen. If universities must depart from the traditional on-campus education many students had planned on, administrators need to explain they will continue to deliver high-quality education that will help the students achieve their goals. And for those still debating whether now is the right time to start their education, schools must communicate what can be distinctive about studying international affairs and policy now that cannot be done any other time—even if students must sacrifice the in-person element.
If students can’t attend class in person, universities will have to rethink their tuition prices. They have to demonstrate that administrators, faculty and staff are working hard with students to deliver quality education and services. They need to explain why the costs are the same, or why they are different. Schools will likely have different conversations about tuition and fees. Tuition remains an investment. Fees can range from extra costs for the library to charges for using the gym. The libraries will still play a critical role in teaching and research, given the online databases and availability of the research librarians. No one, of course, should be paying a gym fee if they can’t use the facility. Schools will have to demonstrate their value in taking students to the next level, which brings us to careers.
Students who pursue graduate degrees in international affairs range from those just starting their careers to those looking to enhance their careers to those seeking to change careers. So schools will need to continue to invest and expand access to career services. Career offices need to be prepared for both an influx of searchers—those who turned to graduate school without another option in a global economic downturn—as well as those whose best-laid plans went awry with the cancellation of internships and delays in hiring. While institutions may be experiencing hiring freezes and cutbacks, investment in these critical career services cannot stop. Career offices play an important role in recruitment and in fundraising, too. When selecting a graduate program, students regularly focus on career outcomes. Research shows that the level of graduate career services has a large impact on future alumni donor activity. Even in times of tight finances, investments in career services are critical for both the students and the institution.
Finally, there is the fifth C: community. Students who joined master’s programs in the fall of 2019 had one and a half semesters or two academic quarters together in person before the pandemic took everything remote. Come fall, many cohorts may start only online. Schools are talking about trying to do some on-campus learning, at least for those students already in the area. Focus first on short, in-person community-building events with proper social distancing or rotating small groups of students for those who can participate. Expand online office hours and virtual small group sessions, so that remote students have regular opportunities to connect with faculty and one another. The incoming class will always remember that they were part of the COVID-19 cohort. There is already that bond, so thinking creatively about ways to build on that will help the students, staff, and faculty maintain the exceptional learning environment that international-affairs schools have long provided. This will be particularly true for students who require visas to pursue their studies. International students make up an average of 40 percent of the student body in programs in the Association of Professional Schools of International Affairs. In some cases, the percentage is much higher. For those international students who will not be able to return to campus in the fall, virtual community building activities and social spaces must be created to help them gather and connect.
Issues of international affairs and policy are on display in everyone’s lives during this global crisis. Students may flock to international-affairs schools because they want to make a difference in this new world. The choices schools make in their curriculum, communication, costs, career services, and community-building can help generate outcomes for students that will make them glad they pursued graduate education in this field—even during a pandemic.


foreignpolicy--2020-06-12--Will U.S. Protests and Crackdowns Damage America’s Global Image?

Will U.S .
Protests and Crackdowns Damage America ’ s Global Image ?
Emma Ashford : What a week .
As a student of history , I used to wonder what it would feel like to live through big , earth-shattering events .
Now that we ’ re in the middle of the biggest civil unrest since 1968—on top of the pandemic—I think I understand a bit better .
How are you doing ?
Matthew Kroenig : I ’ m OK. We live in Washington , so we were in the midst of the upheaval last week .
And you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is a triple whammy : pandemic , civil unrest , and recession .
Do you think the events of the past week will affect the election ?
EA : Well , there was some unexpectedly good news on the economy : Unemployment is down , not up !
Of course , it ’ s still at historically high 13.3 percent .
But that was all eclipsed by the mass protests that broke out last week .
Both will impact the election , I ’ m sure , but it ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ galvanize President Donald Trump ’ s base to turn out .
Or they could drive up minority turnout instead .
No one knows for sure .
MK : Yes .
The American public seems surprisingly united on many of the big issues of the past week .
Majorities believe there are racial injustices in policing and are calling for reform .
But they were also worried about the violence and looting and supported efforts to restore order .
There was controversy , however , about proposals to use the uniformed military in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential crisis in civil-military relations .
What ’ s your take on this development ?
EA : I think the Trump administration played a bad hand extremely badly .
You can see the broad shape of a public relations strategy there : reinforce the idea of law and order for his base , signal support for police unions , and use the military to project strength .
But the implementation showed how poor a strategy it was .
Dispersing peaceful protesters violently so that the president could have a photo-op with an upside-down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mayor Muriel Bowser and placing troops armed with bayonets on the streets ?
Ordering helicopters to disrupt protests ?
Utter madness .
Let ’ s talk more about the civil-military relations part of this , though .
What were your thoughts ?
MK : There are a couple of different issues .
The first was the potential politicization of the military , with Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley present for the photo-op at St. John ’ s Church .
Esper said he didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and thought he was going out to view some damage and visit the troops , and Milley later apologized saying he “ shouldn ’ t have been there.
” Members of the professional defense community seem to agree that the military should stay out of politics and that these protests did not rise to the level of requiring a military response .
The second was whether it is appropriate to use the U.S. military in a domestic policing role .
The professional national security and defense community seemed to be united on both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stay out of politics and that these protests did not rise to the level of requiring a military response even if it is justified in some cases when accompanied by a state request for help , such as in 1992 when California Gov .
Pete Wilson asked for military backup to quell the Rodney King riots .
EA : On the second issue , I think we often underestimate how often the military is called in to do disaster relief or policing domestically .
But it ’ s almost always the national guard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different and strange , with the president almost ordering an occupation of D.C. with a ragtag group of federal forces , against the wishes of the population , protesters , and the city government .
It ’ s a reminder that the U.S. capital is not a state and is effectively disenfranchised .
And it was mostly unnecessary , too .
Social media was full of pictures of my empty office at the Cato Institute , almost a mile from the White House , surrounded by Humvees , a tanker , and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Administration agents .
We had a window smashed early on , but that was about it .
Why we needed to fortify that block as if it was the Baghdad Green Zone , I have no idea .
MK : Well , since you ask , I was tired of you beating me in these debates , so I called in some reinforcements .
EA : Very funny .
But that first issue is more interesting .
Realistically , neither Esper nor Milley should have been there .
And it became even more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tried to withdraw the troops from D.C. , the White House pushed back , and Esper was apparently almost fired .
Do you have any thoughts on that ?
MK : Esper must have been feeling some intense competing pressures .
He was facing strong criticism from the national security community .
The day before , a member of his defense policy board , James Miller , resigned in protest of Esper ’ s presence in Lafayette Square .
EA : Not just that !
Former Defense Secretary James Mattis finally came out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do so during impeachment and other previous crises .
It ’ s rare—and generally frowned on—for senior retired military officials to opine on political matters .
If he ’ s worried about civil-military relations , and about the president “ trying to turn Americans against one another , ” it seems as if there really is a consensus that Trump overstepped badly .
The United States ’ rivals didn ’ t hesitate to highlight the chaos .
At the very least , they ’ re able to use these signs of division @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ rivals didn ’ t hesitate to highlight the chaos .
At the very least , they ’ re able to use these signs of division as propaganda .
MK : Yes .
Russia , China , and Iran all tried to draw a moral equivalence between the unrest in the United States and their own gross human rights abuses .
EA : I really don ’ t like to engage in whataboutism , but don ’ t they have a point ?
The Trump administration tear-gassed clergy and removed them from church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department literally has programs designed to watch for that kind of thing in other countries .
MK : This was not a shining moment for the United States .
But there is a huge difference between the regrettable episode here and the things our adversaries do : shoot critical journalists in the back , hang LGBT people , or keep 1 million ethnic minorities locked up in “ reeducation ” camps .
EA : Fair enough , but “ they ’ re worse than us ” is unlikely to be a winning slogan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is whether this is a serious or even deadly blow to U.S. soft power and prestige around the world .
For me , I ’ m not sure it will add much to a ledger already groaning from the weight of the Iraq War , George W. Bush , and the Trump administration ’ s many insults .
What about you ?
MK : I think this was a blow to U.S. soft power .
I heard from allied officials this week about how these events negatively affected their view of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hypocrisy there as well .
The United States has its problems , but which country is doing better on race relations ?
Italians make monkey noises at black soccer players , and Japanese society practices routine racial discrimination .
EA : Don ’ t remind me .
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has published articles calling African children racial slurs and referring to watermelons .
MK : Whether this is a serious long-term blow to American soft power depends on what happens next .
One thing that makes the United States different is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our stated ideals and strive to improve .
We became a freer and stronger nation after the Civil War and the civil rights movement .
These are dark times , but I hope we can emerge with more equality at home and greater influence abroad .
EA : That would require better leadership .
Here ’ s a fun story you might enjoy at the intersection of leadership and propaganda : The president is retweeting conspiracy theories from a journalist on One America News Network .
She ’ s Russian , previously worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spreading crazy conspiracy theories .
The network itself is a cesspool of extreme right-wing conspiracies , but it ’ s been gaining the president ’ s favor recently , with even Fox News increasingly unwilling to defend him .
Seems pretty hard to push back on disinformation when it ’ s the president himself spreading it , no ?
MK : We all need to get much more sophisticated about how we consume information , including the president .
Russia ’ s disinformation efforts can be sophisticated , and open societies like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Russia may have scored another victory this week with reports that the United States could pull troops out of Germany , in part to punish it for not spending enough on defense .
This would be a mistake .
The United States is there not primarily as a favor to Germany but also because it is good for the United States .
Washington benefits from geopolitical stability in Europe .
But I suspect you would be happy for U.S. troops there to come home ?
EA : I ’ d be happy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the world come home , and this is no exception .
European states are rich , prosperous , and technologically advanced .
They ’ re more than capable of doing the job of conventional defense without American troops permanently stationed there .
Russia is hardly the Soviet Union , after all .
But there are a couple of other issues here .
One point is that bases in Germany today often serve more as logistics hubs for U.S. adventures in the Middle East than anything else .
I doubt Trump—a president who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that region—understands that .
Add to that some doubt about whether the troops are coming home at all or whether they ’ re being sent to Poland as part of the on-again , off-again “ Fort Trump ” project .
MK : I agree that Germany should be doing much more for its own defense .
Its army is so poorly equipped—it trains with broomsticks instead of firearms .
But a U.S. presence and leadership are still necessary to make NATO work .
And while Russia is not the Soviet Union , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fait accompli attack against the vulnerable Baltic States .
Poland would be the center of gravity in such a war , so there is a need to enhance NATO forces there .
And reinforcements would have to come from Germany—which is why force levels there are important .
EA : This kind of argument almost makes me feel as if we ’ re living on Earth 2.0 and debating a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton ’ s decision to move more troops to Europe .
We can debate the merits , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a president who has openly expressed his desire that the United States should get out of NATO , and who is withdrawing troops from Germany to spite Angela Merkel , but is sending them to Poland instead—because Poland offered to bribe him by naming a base after him .
It ’ s just not coherent .
And it ’ s hard to see what good moving troops around does in that situation , no matter which side of the debate you take .
MK : As I ’ ve recommended for three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration does , not what it says .
The messaging is disjointed .
But the United States has declared the return of great-power rivalry with Russia and China the foremost priority , and it has strengthened U.S. defenses in Europe and the Indo-Pacific , including increasing defense spending for NATO and apparently now enhancing forces in Poland .
EA : I used to agree with this .
But I think it ’ s been getting harder and harder for the so-called “ adults in the room ” to undermine the president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidency , the Pentagon would have managed to slow-roll this .
Now , his appointees are mostly acting rather than confirmed , far more beholden to him , and far more willing to implement his strange whims .
If Trump wins a second term , I think his own opinions will have far more sway than those strategy documents will .
MK : Well , if that happens , we will be back here to debate it .
EA : Yes , but the way things have been going , he ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ D.C. , and we ’ ll be barricaded in our offices again .

Emma Ashford: What a week. As a student of history, I used to wonder what it would feel like to live through big, earth-shattering events. Now that we’re in the middle of the biggest civil unrest since 1968—on top of the pandemic—I think I understand a bit better. How are you doing?
Emma Ashford: What a week. As a student of history, I used to wonder what it would feel like to live through big, earth-shattering events. Now that we’re in the middle of the biggest civil unrest since 1968—on top of the pandemic—I think I understand a bit better. How are you doing?
Matthew Kroenig: I’m OK. We live in Washington, so we were in the midst of the upheaval last week. And you overlooked one of the major events. This is a triple whammy: pandemic, civil unrest, and recession. Do you think the events of the past week will affect the election?
EA: Well, there was some unexpectedly good news on the economy: Unemployment is down, not up! Of course, it’s still at historically high 13.3 percent. But that was all eclipsed by the mass protests that broke out last week. Both will impact the election, I’m sure, but it’s not clear how: The protests could actually galvanize President Donald Trump’s base to turn out. Or they could drive up minority turnout instead. No one knows for sure.
MK: Yes. The American public seems surprisingly united on many of the big issues of the past week. Majorities believe there are racial injustices in policing and are calling for reform. But they were also worried about the violence and looting and supported efforts to restore order. There was controversy, however, about proposals to use the uniformed military in a domestic policing role, leading to a potential crisis in civil-military relations. What’s your take on this development?
Emma Ashford is a research fellow at the Cato Institute.
Matthew Kroenig is deputy director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center. They debate foreign policy and the 2020 election.
EA: I think the Trump administration played a bad hand extremely badly. You can see the broad shape of a public relations strategy there: reinforce the idea of law and order for his base, signal support for police unions, and use the military to project strength. But the implementation showed how poor a strategy it was. Dispersing peaceful protesters violently so that the president could have a photo-op with an upside-down bible? Rejecting the requests of D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and placing troops armed with bayonets on the streets? Ordering helicopters to disrupt protests? Utter madness.
Let’s talk more about the civil-military relations part of this, though. What were your thoughts?
MK: There are a couple of different issues. The first was the potential politicization of the military, with Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley present for the photo-op at St. John’s Church. Esper said he didn’t know the purpose of the walk and thought he was going out to view some damage and visit the troops, and Milley later apologized saying he “shouldn’t have been there.”
Members of the professional defense community seem to agree that the military should stay out of politics and that these protests did not rise to the level of requiring a military response.
The second was whether it is appropriate to use the U.S. military in a domestic policing role. The professional national security and defense community seemed to be united on both of these issues: The military should stay out of politics and that these protests did not rise to the level of requiring a military response even if it is justified in some cases when accompanied by a state request for help, such as in 1992 when California Gov. Pete Wilson asked for military backup to quell the Rodney King riots.
EA: On the second issue, I think we often underestimate how often the military is called in to do disaster relief or policing domestically. But it’s almost always the national guard and rarely federal troops.
This was different and strange, with the president almost ordering an occupation of D.C. with a ragtag group of federal forces, against the wishes of the population, protesters, and the city government. It’s a reminder that the U.S. capital is not a state and is effectively disenfranchised.
And it was mostly unnecessary, too. Social media was full of pictures of my empty office at the Cato Institute, almost a mile from the White House, surrounded by Humvees, a tanker, and a bunch of military police and Drug Enforcement Administration agents. We had a window smashed early on, but that was about it. Why we needed to fortify that block as if it was the Baghdad Green Zone, I have no idea.
MK: Well, since you ask, I was tired of you beating me in these debates, so I called in some reinforcements.
EA: Very funny. But that first issue is more interesting. Realistically, neither Esper nor Milley should have been there. And it became even more controversial the next day, when Esper tried to withdraw the troops from D.C., the White House pushed back, and Esper was apparently almost fired. Do you have any thoughts on that?
MK: Esper must have been feeling some intense competing pressures. He was facing strong criticism from the national security community. The day before, a member of his defense policy board, James Miller, resigned in protest of Esper’s presence in Lafayette Square.
EA: Not just that! Former Defense Secretary James Mattis finally came out and denounced Trump, after repeatedly refusing to do so during impeachment and other previous crises. It’s rare—and generally frowned on—for senior retired military officials to opine on political matters. If he’s worried about civil-military relations, and about the president “trying to turn Americans against one another,” it seems as if there really is a consensus that Trump overstepped badly.
The United States’ rivals didn’t hesitate to highlight the chaos. At the very least, they’re able to use these signs of division as propaganda.
And the United States’ rivals didn’t hesitate to highlight the chaos. At the very least, they’re able to use these signs of division as propaganda.
MK: Yes. Russia, China, and Iran all tried to draw a moral equivalence between the unrest in the United States and their own gross human rights abuses.
EA: I really don’t like to engage in whataboutism, but don’t they have a point? The Trump administration tear-gassed clergy and removed them from church property for a photo-op. The State Department literally has programs designed to watch for that kind of thing in other countries.
MK: This was not a shining moment for the United States. But there is a huge difference between the regrettable episode here and the things our adversaries do: shoot critical journalists in the back, hang LGBT people, or keep 1 million ethnic minorities locked up in “reeducation” camps.
EA: Fair enough, but “they’re worse than us” is unlikely to be a winning slogan! The key question, I think, is whether this is a serious or even deadly blow to U.S. soft power and prestige around the world. For me, I’m not sure it will add much to a ledger already groaning from the weight of the Iraq War, George W. Bush, and the Trump administration’s many insults. What about you?
MK: I think this was a blow to U.S. soft power. I heard from allied officials this week about how these events negatively affected their view of the United States. But there is some hypocrisy there as well. The United States has its problems, but which country is doing better on race relations? Italians make monkey noises at black soccer players, and Japanese society practices routine racial discrimination.
EA: Don’t remind me. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has published articles calling African children racial slurs and referring to watermelons.
MK: Whether this is a serious long-term blow to American soft power depends on what happens next. One thing that makes the United States different is that most Americans do genuinely believe in our stated ideals and strive to improve. We became a freer and stronger nation after the Civil War and the civil rights movement. These are dark times, but I hope we can emerge with more equality at home and greater influence abroad.
EA: That would require better leadership. Here’s a fun story you might enjoy at the intersection of leadership and propaganda: The president is retweeting conspiracy theories from a journalist on One America News Network. She’s Russian, previously worked for Sputnik, and is known for spreading crazy conspiracy theories.
The network itself is a cesspool of extreme right-wing conspiracies, but it’s been gaining the president’s favor recently, with even Fox News increasingly unwilling to defend him. Seems pretty hard to push back on disinformation when it’s the president himself spreading it, no?
MK: We all need to get much more sophisticated about how we consume information, including the president. Russia’s disinformation efforts can be sophisticated, and open societies like the United States are vulnerable to foreign penetration.
Russia may have scored another victory this week with reports that the United States could pull troops out of Germany, in part to punish it for not spending enough on defense. This would be a mistake. The United States is there not primarily as a favor to Germany but also because it is good for the United States. Washington benefits from geopolitical stability in Europe.
But I suspect you would be happy for U.S. troops there to come home?
EA: I’d be happy to see a lot more U.S. troops around the world come home, and this is no exception. European states are rich, prosperous, and technologically advanced. They’re more than capable of doing the job of conventional defense without American troops permanently stationed there. Russia is hardly the Soviet Union, after all.
But there are a couple of other issues here. One point is that bases in Germany today often serve more as logistics hubs for U.S. adventures in the Middle East than anything else. I doubt Trump—a president who has dramatically increased the U.S. presence in that region—understands that. Add to that some doubt about whether the troops are coming home at all or whether they’re being sent to Poland as part of the on-again, off-again “Fort Trump” project.
MK: I agree that Germany should be doing much more for its own defense. Its army is so poorly equipped—it trains with broomsticks instead of firearms. But a U.S. presence and leadership are still necessary to make NATO work. And while Russia is not the Soviet Union, it is dangerous. I worry most about a fait accompli attack against the vulnerable Baltic States. Poland would be the center of gravity in such a war, so there is a need to enhance NATO forces there. And reinforcements would have to come from Germany—which is why force levels there are important.
EA: This kind of argument almost makes me feel as if we’re living on Earth 2.0 and debating a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton’s decision to move more troops to Europe. We can debate the merits, but it almost feels pointless.
Instead, we have a president who has openly expressed his desire that the United States should get out of NATO, and who is withdrawing troops from Germany to spite Angela Merkel, but is sending them to Poland instead—because Poland offered to bribe him by naming a base after him. It’s just not coherent. And it’s hard to see what good moving troops around does in that situation, no matter which side of the debate you take.
MK: As I’ve recommended for three years now, watch what the Trump administration does, not what it says. The messaging is disjointed. But the United States has declared the return of great-power rivalry with Russia and China the foremost priority, and it has strengthened U.S. defenses in Europe and the Indo-Pacific, including increasing defense spending for NATO and apparently now enhancing forces in Poland.
EA: I used to agree with this. But I think it’s been getting harder and harder for the so-called “adults in the room” to undermine the president’s whims. In year one of his presidency, the Pentagon would have managed to slow-roll this. Now, his appointees are mostly acting rather than confirmed, far more beholden to him, and far more willing to implement his strange whims. If Trump wins a second term, I think his own opinions will have far more sway than those strategy documents will.
MK: Well, if that happens, we will be back here to debate it.
EA: Yes, but the way things have been going, he’ll withdraw those troops, put them in D.C., and we’ll be barricaded in our offices again.


foreignpolicy--2020-06-12--In South Africa, Racial Tensions Simmer Amid a Pandemic

“ Whites brought # CoronaVirus into South Africa from Italy and still , you cry to walk your dogs , ” a Twitter user with the handle @ MashSammy wrote on the eve of South Africa ’ s March 27 lockdown , garnering hundreds of likes .
As the coronavirus spread across the world , health experts warned that South Africa could be a powder keg—with tightly packed townships and the highest rate of HIV in the world making it all but impossible to fight the virus .
Instead , the country has boasted a relatively successful coronavirus response thus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million , there have been about 50,000 confirmed cases and just over 1,200 deaths amid a strict lockdown and intensive public health response ( though some fear the peak of the outbreak has yet to come ) .
But the coronavirus and heavy-handed response have highlighted the country ’ s deeply entrenched inequalities , inflaming age-old racial tensions in the so-called Rainbow Nation .
The tweet about dogs , for example , is carefully crafted to spark outrage among both black and white South Africans , in a country where even poodles are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a tool of oppression—used by apartheid police to brutally break up protests—with even the humble house hound sometimes taught to bark at black passersby .
When President Cyril Ramaphosa placed the country under its strict lockdown , he banned all outdoor activity , including dog walking , a move that got some white South Africans complaining on social media .
That , in turn , drew ire from black South Africans , who highlighted the hypocrisy of white neighbors caring more about their pampered pets than the majority of their impoverished compatriots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one example of the racial debates blowing up .
A Facebook post by Zelda La Grange , a white former aide to Nelson Mandela , in which she patronizingly advised employers to “ teach ” their domestic workers how to wash their hands went viral with commentators highlighting her racist tone .
At the beginning of the outbreak , the radical opposition party , the Economic Freedom Fighters ( EFF ) , called for COVID-19 patients ( mainly foreigners , read white people ) to be quarantined on Robben Island—where many African National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Our government loves … to keep white people happy and safe , even at the expense of Africans , ” the EFF ’ s firebrand leader , Julius Malema , said in an April 27 speech marking Freedom Day , a public holiday commemorating the first democratic elections 26 years ago .
While Malema is concerned the government is giving white people special treatment , there are those in the white minority who feel it ’ s quite the opposite .
White social media erupted after news spread in March that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to majority black-owned small businesses—as part of its Black Economic Empowerment policy .
While the government walked back on the idea , the right-wing Afrikaner advocacy group AfriForum responded by slamming it for its “ attack on white people and businesses.
” A particularly vicious example of old-school white South African racism rearing its ugly head came when social media users shared images depicting a female minister , Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma , as an ape .
“ The lockdown , in its umpteenth day , is taking on some typically South African characteristics : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race war , ” a May 15 column in the Daily Maverick newspaper warned .
Ramaphosa deserves praise for his clear and levelheaded leadership at a time of unprecedented crisis , and many South Africans have noted how lucky they are not to be stuck with a populist like Donald Trump or Jair Bolsonaro or even former Presidents Jacob Zuma or Thabo Mbeki—the latter notorious for his denialism during the AIDS epidemic .
But race is inseparable from the coronavirus crisis .
While most white people ( and increasingly many members of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homes with gardens , social distancing is but a dream for poor black people in this country ’ s overcrowded townships—their very layout a product of apartheid .
In the townships , large families are squeezed into one-bedroom shacks , regular hand-washing is impossible for those who have to walk far to their only shared tap , and working from home is a joke for the masses of unemployed people who eke out their living on the streets and travel to work on overcrowded minibuses , the main form of public transport .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the best health care systems in Africa , it is ill-equipped to deal with an onslaught of sick people , let alone with a population where some 8 million people already have weak immune systems due to HIV .
When COVID-19 spreads—the peak is expected in the next few months—unrest could spread with it .
The president , led by science , moved swiftly to flatten the curve and likely prevented many deaths in instituting one of the harshest lockdowns the world has seen during this pandemic .
However , there were those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chance to implement bureaucratic and petty rules .
Among the measures that were most contentious was the ban on the sale of cigarettes and alcohol , a move introduced to try to keep hospital beds free and lessen domestic violence during the lockdown .
While white people may have been missing their evening gin and tonics on the veranda , the real victims of the prohibition were black South Africans , who resorted to making their own alcohol at home , with sometimes fatal results .
The ban also spurred an illegal cigarette @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the contraband in the townships .
Even Finance Minister Tito Mboweni broke ranks and questioned the policy , warning that the huge fall in tax revenue would hurt an already struggling economy .
The police went hard after rule breakers , with an estimated 200,000 people arrested , warned , or fined for relatively petty infringements .
Those arrests , again , disproportionally targeted poor black South Africans .
Police have been criticized for their heavy-handedness in enforcing the rules , at times resorting to deadly force , with many accusing Police Minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , skiet en donder ” approach—an Afrikaans apartheid-era police term meaning “ kicking , shooting , and beating people up.
” The army , too , appears to have taken the method literally , brutally assaulting Collins Khosa as he was drinking a beer in his own backyard in Johannesburg ’ s sprawling Alexandra township .
Khosa later died of blunt force trauma .
Most of the violence meted out for lockdown violations has been by a black police force against black citizens , prompting the question of whether institutional racism is alive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those in power .
And the official response has played out along racial lines from other corners .
Last month , a huge row erupted over comments by Glenda Gray , a white South African scientist and president of the Medical Research Council .
Gray , whose credentials in the fight against apartheid are stellar and who is widely credited with helping to turn the tide on HIV in South Africa , had criticized aspects of the government ’ s prolonged lockdown and expressed concern that it was leading to renewed levels of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government , increasingly vigilant against any criticism or alternative viewpoints , was swift : The head of the health department called for Gray to be put under investigation .
While dozens of fellow scientists and some old comrades from the anti-apartheid movement have zealously defended her , the EFF didn ’ t lose time playing the race card .
“ She must be dismissed as a stooge of the desperate White Monopoly Capital seeking to end Lockdown for profit !
” tweeted Mbuyiseni Ndlozi , an EFF member of parliament .
During @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ white monopoly capital ” became a buzzword often used to tarnish any dissenting voices .
Ironically , it was dreamed up by Bell Pottinger , the now disgraced British public relations firm , at the behest of the powerful and politically connected Gupta family , originally from India , who were looking to inflame racial tensions and distract the nation from how they were ransacking the government and even influencing ministerial decisions .
That such words are in play again hints at the dangers of this renewed racial fervor amid the outbreak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ break out are sensationalist , the divisive , polarizing rhetoric is no less worrying for that .
The return of such incendiary language threatens to undo the gains made in race relations over the last 26 years and undermine the progress achieved since Mandela ushered in a progressive era of reconciliation .
After one of the world ’ s harshest lockdowns , a recent relaxation of regulations means dog walkers are now back on South Africa ’ s streets , liquor stores are open again , and life is getting back to normal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and misinformation on social media and in political discourse were not only extremely ugly—they might even prove the more dangerous pandemic .

“Whites brought #CoronaVirus into South Africa from Italy and still, you cry to walk your dogs,” a Twitter user with the handle @MashSammy wrote on the eve of South Africa’s March 27 lockdown, garnering hundreds of likes.
“Whites brought #CoronaVirus into South Africa from Italy and still, you cry to walk your dogs,” a Twitter user with the handle @MashSammy wrote on the eve of South Africa’s March 27 lockdown, garnering hundreds of likes.
As the coronavirus spread across the world, health experts warned that South Africa could be a powder keg—with tightly packed townships and the highest rate of HIV in the world making it all but impossible to fight the virus. Instead, the country has boasted a relatively successful coronavirus response thus far. In a country of 59 million, there have been about 50,000 confirmed cases and just over 1,200 deaths amid a strict lockdown and intensive public health response (though some fear the peak of the outbreak has yet to come). But the coronavirus and heavy-handed response have highlighted the country’s deeply entrenched inequalities, inflaming age-old racial tensions in the so-called Rainbow Nation.
The tweet about dogs, for example, is carefully crafted to spark outrage among both black and white South Africans, in a country where even poodles are political. Dogs have long been seen as a tool of oppression—used by apartheid police to brutally break up protests—with even the humble house hound sometimes taught to bark at black passersby. When President Cyril Ramaphosa placed the country under its strict lockdown, he banned all outdoor activity, including dog walking, a move that got some white South Africans complaining on social media. That, in turn, drew ire from black South Africans, who highlighted the hypocrisy of white neighbors caring more about their pampered pets than the majority of their impoverished compatriots.
But the dog issue is only one example of the racial debates blowing up. A Facebook post by Zelda La Grange, a white former aide to Nelson Mandela, in which she patronizingly advised employers to “teach” their domestic workers how to wash their hands went viral with commentators highlighting her racist tone. At the beginning of the outbreak, the radical opposition party, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), called for COVID-19 patients (mainly foreigners, read white people) to be quarantined on Robben Island—where many African National Congress leaders were imprisoned during apartheid.
“Our government loves … to keep white people happy and safe, even at the expense of Africans,” the EFF’s firebrand leader, Julius Malema, said in an April 27 speech marking Freedom Day, a public holiday commemorating the first democratic elections 26 years ago.
While Malema is concerned the government is giving white people special treatment, there are those in the white minority who feel it’s quite the opposite. White social media erupted after news spread in March that the government would be giving crisis aid only to majority black-owned small businesses—as part of its Black Economic Empowerment policy. While the government walked back on the idea, the right-wing Afrikaner advocacy group AfriForum responded by slamming it for its “attack on white people and businesses.”
A particularly vicious example of old-school white South African racism rearing its ugly head came when social media users shared images depicting a female minister, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, as an ape.
“The lockdown, in its umpteenth day, is taking on some typically South African characteristics: it’s turning into a low-grade race war,” a May 15 column in the Daily Maverick newspaper warned.
Ramaphosa deserves praise for his clear and levelheaded leadership at a time of unprecedented crisis, and many South Africans have noted how lucky they are not to be stuck with a populist like Donald Trump or Jair Bolsonaro or even former Presidents Jacob Zuma or Thabo Mbeki—the latter notorious for his denialism during the AIDS epidemic.
But race is inseparable from the coronavirus crisis. While most white people (and increasingly many members of the black middle class) live in spacious homes with gardens, social distancing is but a dream for poor black people in this country’s overcrowded townships—their very layout a product of apartheid. In the townships, large families are squeezed into one-bedroom shacks, regular hand-washing is impossible for those who have to walk far to their only shared tap, and working from home is a joke for the masses of unemployed people who eke out their living on the streets and travel to work on overcrowded minibuses, the main form of public transport.
Even though South Africa has one of the best health care systems in Africa, it is ill-equipped to deal with an onslaught of sick people, let alone with a population where some 8 million people already have weak immune systems due to HIV. When COVID-19 spreads—the peak is expected in the next few months—unrest could spread with it.
The president, led by science, moved swiftly to flatten the curve and likely prevented many deaths in instituting one of the harshest lockdowns the world has seen during this pandemic. However, there were those in his party who have relished the chance to implement bureaucratic and petty rules.
Among the measures that were most contentious was the ban on the sale of cigarettes and alcohol, a move introduced to try to keep hospital beds free and lessen domestic violence during the lockdown.
While white people may have been missing their evening gin and tonics on the veranda, the real victims of the prohibition were black South Africans, who resorted to making their own alcohol at home, with sometimes fatal results. The ban also spurred an illegal cigarette trade, with children often illegally selling the contraband in the townships. Even Finance Minister Tito Mboweni broke ranks and questioned the policy, warning that the huge fall in tax revenue would hurt an already struggling economy.
The police went hard after rule breakers, with an estimated 200,000 people arrested, warned, or fined for relatively petty infringements. Those arrests, again, disproportionally targeted poor black South Africans. Police have been criticized for their heavy-handedness in enforcing the rules, at times resorting to deadly force, with many accusing Police Minister Bheki Cele of implementing a “skop, skiet en donder” approach—an Afrikaans apartheid-era police term meaning “kicking, shooting, and beating people up.” The army, too, appears to have taken the method literally, brutally assaulting Collins Khosa as he was drinking a beer in his own backyard in Johannesburg’s sprawling Alexandra township. Khosa later died of blunt force trauma. Most of the violence meted out for lockdown violations has been by a black police force against black citizens, prompting the question of whether institutional racism is alive and well despite the skin color of those in power.
And the official response has played out along racial lines from other corners. Last month, a huge row erupted over comments by Glenda Gray, a white South African scientist and president of the Medical Research Council. Gray, whose credentials in the fight against apartheid are stellar and who is widely credited with helping to turn the tide on HIV in South Africa, had criticized aspects of the government’s prolonged lockdown and expressed concern that it was leading to renewed levels of malnutrition in children.
The reaction from the government, increasingly vigilant against any criticism or alternative viewpoints, was swift: The head of the health department called for Gray to be put under investigation. While dozens of fellow scientists and some old comrades from the anti-apartheid movement have zealously defended her, the EFF didn’t lose time playing the race card.
“She must be dismissed as a stooge of the desperate White Monopoly Capital seeking to end Lockdown for profit!” tweeted Mbuyiseni Ndlozi, an EFF member of parliament.
During the years Zuma was in power, “white monopoly capital” became a buzzword often used to tarnish any dissenting voices. Ironically, it was dreamed up by Bell Pottinger, the now disgraced British public relations firm, at the behest of the powerful and politically connected Gupta family, originally from India, who were looking to inflame racial tensions and distract the nation from how they were ransacking the government and even influencing ministerial decisions.
That such words are in play again hints at the dangers of this renewed racial fervor amid the outbreak. Although alarmist interpretations suggesting violence could break out are sensationalist, the divisive, polarizing rhetoric is no less worrying for that. The return of such incendiary language threatens to undo the gains made in race relations over the last 26 years and undermine the progress achieved since Mandela ushered in a progressive era of reconciliation.
After one of the world’s harshest lockdowns, a recent relaxation of regulations means dog walkers are now back on South Africa’s streets, liquor stores are open again, and life is getting back to normal. However, the months of mudslinging and misinformation on social media and in political discourse were not only extremely ugly—they might even prove the more dangerous pandemic.


foreignpolicy--2020-06-13--Senate Demands Answers on Afghanistan Pullout

The news that President Donald Trump wants U.S. troops home from Afghanistan by Election Day might ’ ve been lost amid a flurry of pandemic- and protest-related headlines , but a quartet of national security-focused lawmakers , including Maine Sen. Angus King , haven ’ t forgotten the story .
This week , King , an independent who caucuses with Democrats , joined a letter to freshly confirmed Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe—whose confirmation he opposed—demanding details on the intelligence community ’ s plans to deal with an early withdrawal , which the senators warned could put U.S. troops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found themselves under fire in Syria last year .
“ I think President [ Barack ] Obama made this mistake in Iraq , ” King told Foreign Policy .
“ If you tell the other side you ’ re going to leave by Nov. 3 , 2020 , they ’ ll go to the beach for two or three months and come back on Nov. 4.
” This interview has been edited for length and clarity .
Foreign Policy : What do you think the future of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What worries me is that a precipitous withdrawal would essentially compromise or eliminate the anti-terrorism mission , and we ’ d be exactly back where we started .
The Taliban doesn ’ t seem to have much sympathy for ISIS , but they ’ ve always been pretty close to al Qaeda , and of course , the Haqqani network is really a part of the Taliban .
There ’ s a real irony here .
I ’ ve been on both the intelligence and the armed services committee for almost eight years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mantra was conditions-based , not calendar-based .
The agreement that was signed in February was supposed to be conditions-based , and it appears now the administration , from published reports , is looking for calendar-based .
The date I ’ ve heard is Election Day .
That gets back to the basic motto of the Taliban , which is “ you ’ ve got the watches , we ’ ve got the time.
” You give them a date , and they ’ re going to wait and they will move .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ existing Afghan government , which is not all that secure , can resist being taken over by the Taliban , and b ) if that happens , will the Haqqanis and al Qaeda be free to roam again , which puts us back at risk .
It ’ s important to emphasize that we ’ re not talking about 100,000 troops .
What we ’ re talking about is enough troops , and I think the number now is about 8,600 , to provide the level of protection necessary to maintain the anti-terrorism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
FP : The Trump administration has put in place a variety of conditions it would like to see from the Taliban before reducing the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan below 8,600 .
What confidence-building measures would you like to see in place before the United States begins taking out more troops ?
AK : I ’ d be delighted to withdraw below that number to zero if we had some confidence that the risk which took us to Afghanistan in the first place has been all but eliminated .
But I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect , say , this is over , we ’ re leaving , and leave the conditions in place that were there in 2001 that put this country at risk .
I ’ m the last person that wants to maintain troops in Afghanistan .
But there was a reason for having gone in the first place , and the reason was al Qaeda and now the Haqqanis , and they ’ re still there .
We made an agreement in February , with conditions , and now the administration appears ready to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even though the conditions haven ’ t been met .
FP : You and your colleagues wrote that you are “ concerned ” about a “ hastily-announced ” U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan like the Trump administration ’ s abrupt drawdown of troops in Syria last year .
Are you worried about a scenario where the United States has a small number of troops retreating under fire if there ’ s a snap decision made to withdraw ?
AK : Yes .
I raised that at Director Ratcliffe ’ s confirmation hearing : I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a time you ’ ve ever differed with the president ?
” And he paused for a minute , and then he said , “ Yes , the withdrawal from Syria.
” I think there is an analogy here where the withdrawal from Syria appeared to not be based upon conditions or circumstances on the ground but has something to do with a deal with [ Turkish President Recep Tayyip ] Erdogan , and I think this is a similar case .
Now , if we want to say as a country we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ troops and the risks to them and the cost for an increased risk of a terrorist attack in this country or other parts of the world , then that should be an explicit discussion , that should be admitted as a trade-off .
But to suggest that we can just leave with no negative likely results is not being truthful with the American people .
You ’ re making the decision that involves a risk .
Maybe after a while you judge that the risk is that al Qaeda is paralyzed or broken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and you say , “ OK , it ’ s not worth the 8,600 troops.
” My impression from what I know about what ’ s going on over there is that that ’ s not a risk that we should be willing to take right now .
FP : Do you have any concerns that administration officials who challenge Trump ’ s desire to withdraw will get fired or tuned out ?
AK : Of course .
That ’ s absolutely a concern .
The worst thing a leader can do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or her circle of advisors .
For this president or any president to eliminate or stifle voices of dissent , as long as they ’ re based upon good faith analysis , is a huge mistake .
That was the reason for my line of questioning with Mr. Ratcliffe .
That ’ s why I ultimately voted against Mr. Ratcliffe , because I don ’ t think , given his history , he ’ s likely to stand up to the president , if it ’ s in disagreement with a policy that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s the ultimate critical role of intelligence .
If you go back , in recent American history , most of the foreign-policy disasters have been , at least , related to if not entirely based upon cooked intelligence , intelligence that was skewed to meet the policy desires of the president or the secretary of state or the secretary of defense .
That ’ s how you make big mistakes .
The truth , in my view , although it may be uncomfortable for the president , is the biggest favor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it assists them in making good decisions .
If you have bad data , you ’ re going to make bad decisions .
That ’ s what worried me about Mr. Ratcliffe—that he won ’ t do that .
If you go back through my all of my hearings in intelligence and armed services , there ’ s a theme where I ask the same questions whether it ’ s a chief of staff with the Joint Chiefs of Staff , a secretary of defense , the director of national intelligence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director of the National Security Agency—will you tell the president of uncomfortable truth based upon the intelligence that you have , even though it goes contrary to the president ’ s wishes ?
If I weren ’ t satisfied that they would do that , I don ’ t vote for them .
That ’ s why I didn ’ t vote for Mr. Ratcliffe .
Although he told me he would , his prior history just didn ’ t square with that representation .
FP : What action do you plan to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an answer from the administration here ?
Is there an avenue through the National Defense Authorization Act or an authorizing bill , an appropriations bill , or something like that ?
AK : Since we just had our markup on the national defense bill , and it ’ s not public yet , I can ’ t respond to that question .
But my intention is to continue to make the point .
It ’ s conceivable that the conditions will be met by November .
It ’ s unlikely , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the whole idea—and I learned this from my Republican colleagues—is you should never have a calendar-based decision in a situation like this .
It should always be conditions-based .
I think President [ Barack ] Obama made this mistake in Iraq : If you tell the other side you ’ re going to leave by Nov. 3 , 2020 , they ’ ll go to the beach for two or three months and come back on Nov. 4 .
That ’ s just common sense .
It should be based upon whether they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that were made in February and whether there ’ s a reasonable assessment by our intelligence community , both in defense intelligence and civilian intelligence , that the control of al Qaeda , which is one of the conditions , has been met or not .
And if it hasn ’ t , at that point , you make an assessment whether the risk of a resurgent al Qaeda is less than the risks to America by maintaining a fairly small force contingent in that country .
But it ought to be explicit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ought to be understood , and it ought to be explained to the American people .
And that you ’ re taking this risk and why you ’ re taking this and why it ’ s a reasonable risk today .
That ’ s sort of where I come out .
FP : You mentioned that you ’ re worried about the risk of cooked intelligence .
Do you think that risk has gone up given the reforms that Richard Grenell enacted in his brief tenure as acting director of national intelligence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t consulted on ?
AK : I think the danger is the chilling effect that goes through the community that basically says , if you tell the truth , you ’ re going to be in trouble , and your career is not going to advance , or you ’ re going to be moved out .
I don ’ t know what the practical effect is .
But logically it would seem that [ former Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence ] Sue Gordon was passed over , a loyalist to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in as acting , and then a loyalist to the president with minimal experience was put in as a full-time director .
That sort of sends a signal that if you want to advance in this organization , you better toe the line , even though it ’ s contrary to what you know to be the truth .
I think it ’ s very dangerous .
It ’ s dangerous for the president .
It may be comforting in the short term to be told what you want to hear , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it ’ s going to lead you to make bad decisions that are going to be harmful to the country , then it ’ s dangerous to you .
Listen , I ’ ve been a governor , I ’ ve been a senator , and it ’ s hard to have somebody on your staff say , “ Boss , you know , you ’ re really going down the wrong road here.
” It ’ s just something that you have to have , and if you don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making bad decisions .
I consider this doing a favor for the president , even though he doesn ’ t seem to want to hear it .

Explore the benefits included in your subscription.
Explore the benefits of your FP subscription.
Stay updated on the topics you care about with My FP. Sign up below.


foreignpolicy--2020-06-13--Our Top Weekend Reads

Our Top Weekend Reads

DO N'T LOSE ACCESS : Your IP access to ForeignPolicy.com will expire on June 15 .
The pandemic could present a host of health challenges separate from the coronavirus to much of the world ’ s population .
Meanwhile , Israel ’ s proposed annexation of the West Bank could severely undermine its image as a Jewish democracy .
And the spread of the George Floyd protests to Europe reveals the nature of the relationship between black populations and European states .
1 .
Trump Rushes to Kill Off Iran Nuclear Deal Before Election The battle between the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclear deal is heating up , and the survival of the deal hangs in the balance , Foreign Policy ’ s Keith Johnson and Colum Lynch report .
2 .
Malaria May Still Be 2020 ’ s Biggest Killer The pandemic may well cause hundreds of thousands of children to die this year : not from COVID-19 , but from malaria , Tim Hirschel-Burns writes .
As Israel contemplates annexing large parts of the West Bank some troubling interpretations of the country ’ s identity as a Jewish state , and its relationship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fore , Shibley Telhami writes .
4 .
Millions of Americans Believe Trump Is Fighting Literal Demons Those who believe in the divine nature of Trump ’ s presidency could pose a bigger threat to American democracy if they feel their prophecy has been hijacked , Emily Brumfield-Hessen writes .
5 .
Europe Needs to Talk About Race Too Widespread protests in Europe in response to the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis have trained an unprecedented spotlight on the relationship between European states and their black populations , Remi Adekoya writes .

The pandemic could present a host of health challenges separate from the coronavirus to much of the world’s population.
The pandemic could present a host of health challenges separate from the coronavirus to much of the world’s population.
Meanwhile, Israel’s proposed annexation of the West Bank could severely undermine its image as a Jewish democracy.
And the spread of the George Floyd protests to Europe reveals the nature of the relationship between black populations and European states.
Here are Foreign Policy’s top weekend reads.
EU foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell, who slammed U.S. pretensions to still have a voice in the fate of the Iran deal, speaks to reporters in Brussels on June 9.
The battle between the United States and the remaining parties to the Iran nuclear deal is heating up, and the survival of the deal hangs in the balance, Foreign Policy’s Keith Johnson and Colum Lynch report.
Indian Malaria Fumigation
The pandemic may well cause hundreds of thousands of children to die this year: not from COVID-19, but from malaria, Tim Hirschel-Burns writes.
A young Palestinian walks along Israel's controversial wall in the occupied West Bank Palestinian village of Abu Dis on Jan. 29.
As Israel contemplates annexing large parts of the West Bank some troubling interpretations of the country’s identity as a Jewish state, and its relationship to democracy, have come to the fore, Shibley Telhami writes.
U.S. President Donald Trump is seen with his personal pastor, Paula White, at an event honoring evangelical leadership in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington on Aug. 27, 2018.
Those who believe in the divine nature of Trump’s presidency could pose a bigger threat to American democracy if they feel their prophecy has been hijacked, Emily Brumfield-Hessen writes.
A Black Lives Matter protest in London
Widespread protests in Europe in response to the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis have trained an unprecedented spotlight on the relationship between European states and their black populations, Remi Adekoya writes.