Is not an expert "on the threats posed by China, Russia, Iran and global terrorism" and especially on Russia, because there are about zero people for the least 20+ years in both House Armed Services and House Foreign Affairs Committees who have any clue about the world outside and the modern warfare. He cannot be an expert, considering his alleged support for a delusional and utterly obsolete concept of "Peace Through Strength" for the United States. Waltz worked for Donald Rumsfeld--the guy who failed miserably in his understanding of the warfare and applied geopolitics. TOE of the US Armed Forces is a testament to the views of these people, not that anyone else would have fared better by screwing US doctrinal development so profoundly. Somebody has to tell the guy that "Strength" based on TOE from 1990s is not strength.
I had a very tenuous hope for Trump calling on Colonel Douglas Macgregor for the position of National Security Adviser, well ... we all knew what was coming, didn't we. Waltz is a "specialist" in high intensity police operations in Afghanistan, wow ... Degree in "International Relations" from VMI kinda gets you some ideas. So, the "special forces" guy with zero understanding of technological and economic drivers of the modern war will be a classic US gung ho "advising" Trump. Well, looks like we exchanged one set of neocons for another. Ah, well ... the more things change, the more they stay the same. Next in line is a chores boy for Adelson's family Marco Rubio ...
As you may have heard already, Donald Trump got himself new National Security Adviser in form of John Bolton. John Bolton is an odious figure and, among many fine qualities defining this guy is his draft-dodging, cowardice and a complete detachment from any military-political realities of the world, he is a lawyer by trade and sometimes goes under the title of diplomat, which he is not. In fact, diplomacy as such--a craft of building and maintaining international relations to the benefit of own nation--does not exist anymore in the US. Bolton is not an exception, if someone thinks that Trump went completely mad by appointing this psychopath--they are wrong. Bolton, in fact, is a concentrated embodiment of modern US "elites" or "establishment". The problem is not just Bolton, however insanely aggressive (the obverse side of cowardice and a collection of inferiority complexes) he is at the expense of others--the problem is institutional and cultural--it is increasingly obvious degeneracy of US ruling class.
America can not and does not produce anymore real statesmen. And most American establishment are people of similar nature as Bolton. I did a short review of the situation with US "elites" about 2.5 years ago. So, now this guy has Trump's ear. What possible "advice" will this "adviser" give Trump. Let's list some of them:
1. War on Iran;
2. War on Syria;
3. War on North Korea;
4. Possibly war on Russia (China?).
I am not being facetious, I just listed points of Bolton's agenda which he was promoting for years and never made a secret of it. Once Mattis and Kelly, last two people in Trump Administration who have at least some grasp of real warfare, are removed from Administration, the preparation with the war on Iran will start.
What kind of war, one may ask? Well, if it is going to be land invasion of Iran, that will be the end of the United States as a country. Not because Iran can attack the US, but because even if the US Armed Forces overcome, with relatively few casualties, Iranian Army, which is better than Arab militaries but still is not a first class fighting force, what would follow--that is going to be a wowser. Unlike anything US encountered before in the Middle East, occupying such country as Iran, where overwhelming majority of Iranian 80+ million strong population will be thirsting for American blood and will have many means to draw it, is simply beyond American resources. To start with, Iran's area is five times larger than, say, Vietnam's. Unlike Iraq, Iran's terrain is extremely complex and mountainous. In general, the number of casualties US military will face will be on the order of magnitude larger than in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. In fact, Vietnam War may begin to look like a rather tame military affair. In the end, can US control Iran without capturing Tehran (a city of 12 million people) or Mashad (3 million), Isfahan (1.9 million) among many, or without controlling Mazenderan and its coast? I am all eyes and ears for anyone to give me a realistic number of US troops required to occupy this country. Do I hear the word Draft (which Bolton and most US elite so successfully dodged) in the air? So, in this case the issue of American internal policies not only may but will become so huge and so toxic that, well... make your own conclusions.
But the main issue here is not even Iran, but, as you might have guessed it already--Russia. And Russia can do a lot and I mean a lot, to address the Iran War, if one breaks out, and to make sure that Iran stands as a nation. In fact, something tells me that such contingencies are being discussed already between Russia and Iran. Iran is no friend of Russia but, judging by the latest events in Russia, Russia and overwhelming majority of Russians had it with the US and the West and Russia is a very wrong country to fvck with on any level once she decides that she had enough and it seems like that she, indeed, had it. But I am sure, John Bolton being a "specialist" in military affairs knows all that, right? I kid, I kid. I, in the last 4 years observed not a single American civilian, and even, which is terrifying, many military people, of prominence, who understand modern warfare realities of this moment of time.
I am not going to review what Russia may do, and she will, since she also has some issues in Caucasus which need serious diplomatic addressing and she will not allow destabilization of Caucasus. Nor will she allow appearance of any hostile power on the shores of Caspian Sea. Bolton, being totally ignorant (it is not an assumption--I know this for a fact) of actual US resources, or lack thereof, issue will have, or already has, in mind a sort of replay of the sharper and more aggressive Cold War 1.0. There could be very few less qualified than Bolton people in Washington who could be entrusted with such an amateur plan, but once the first bombs start falling on Iran, or, for that matter on North Korea, the United States will start its countdown to own implosion. It seems that in general the United States has a constant issue with her National Security Advisers, be it late Zbig, whose loyalty was to Poland and who in his pathological Russophobia unleashed forces of Islamic jihad, or be it John Bolton, who is utterly unqualified in any matters concerning actual national security--the pattern is very clear. So, in order to not leave all of you in a somewhat depressed mood, I suggest we all listen to Bolton himself, Michael, of course. And what did you think? BTW, what a beautiful piece of music and lyrics.
President Trump surely knows from what pool to pick his National Security Advisers. Just in: General H.R. McMaster was appointed new National Security Adviser instead of recently resigned General Flynn. McMaster, apart from being a combat veteran, holds Ph.D. At this stage, apart from passing, again, this extremely important appointment over the head of a militant necocon John Bolton, Trump's propensity for choosing to this position US Armed Forces senior military officers looks very healthy. The reason for this is very simple: US "diplomacy", "academe" and spooks are so discredited by now that any alternative such as people who actually dealt all their lives with serious and very particular tasks is a good change. Moreover, US Armed Forces by now are probably the only organization left in US which is capable of sober and coherent assessment of the world outside and knows what is going on on the inside with American power. Consider this: US JCS and Russian Chief Of General Staff just met in Baku several days ago and the meeting was cordial and very substantive. This is what happens when, without being overly idealistic and overplaying the significance, real professionals begin to talk. In the end, this is how one deescalate things--militaries are simply better at that.
At this stage, placing non-spooks and other "deep state" operatives on such important positions is a right choice. I admit, I am being biased towards military people, but then again, I have a very good understanding of how normal military professionals, not some political appointees in epaulets, think. So, good choice, I think, at this stage. By this appointment President Trump really shows that he views US Armed Forces as a very important part of his political agenda. They are also his really serious insurance against any stupid moves by the (I am just following a fad here) "Deep State". This appointment boosts system's stability. Not bad, not bad.
