Pot pourri

Philip Zelikow, Executive director of the 911 Commission, pointed out that blaming top leaders was to conflate strategic and tactical issues. George W. Bush can no more be blamed for the 911 attack than New York's chief of police is responsible for a specific shooting in Manhattan. While the Whitehouse was repeatedly informed about Al Qaeda’s planning for a "spectacular attack", it wasn't clear that any strategic change of tack in would have been successful in preventing it at its advanced stage of planning. Fareed Zakaria also noted that the same argument applies to criticism of Hilary Clinton's alleged culpability for the attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi. Zelikow added FDR and Pearl Harbour to the list.

---

The Republican's dogged pursuit Clinton over Benghazi is driven by three things: a fairly thinly disguised hatred; the goal of scoring political advantage in the run up to the next general election; and a penchant for conspiracy theories that "there must be something there, if only we look hard enough" (which while almost certainly true of anyone except the odd saint, may in fact be slightly more likely in Clinton's case).

---

In discussing Britain's role in the toppling of Saddam Hussein, Tony Blair noted that he had believed the faulty intelligence about WMD. His interview was particularly interesting for several reasons. First, his tone was apologetic - indeed he actually said "I have to apologise", unusual for any politician, even retired ones - and despite his claim to to be immune to public opinion, it would appear that 10 years of vilification have left their mark. Second, his strongest justification for invading was the strengthening of ties with the US. Cementing the 'Special Relationship' seems to have trumped good planning.

He also pointed out that no one has come forward with a better policy; walking away hasn't worked (Iraq and Afghanistan), nor have air-strikes while avoiding  boots on the ground (Libya), nor arming a handful of rebels (Syria). Of course a better post-regime change plan might have made the choice-set in Iraq less problematic, although things were handled better in Afghanistan and the situation there isn't altogether too rosy. But that may have as much to do with Pakistan's poor behaviour as with the post-Taliban Afghan administration.     

---

Why is Trump is spending his fortune on a futile bid for the Republican nomination?

1. He likes nothing more than fame and publicity and spending money to get it makes utilitarian sense
2. This is an investment in the Trump brand that will pay off down the line in TV deal and book sales etc.
3. He hopes to shift the terms of the debate, possibly towards issues he cares about such as immigration (though perhaps we'll never know what he really thinks - it may all be an act. Or it might not be, which is slightly more disturbing)

---

President Obama is much more popular abroad then he is at home. One explanation is his reluctance to project power though the use of force, which Republicans (and some Democrats) interpret as weakness and everyone else sees as blessed relief.

---

Putin has been roundly criticised for supporting the Assad regime in Syria. Yet he for one seems to have learnt the lessons of Iraq and Libya; that if you depose a dictator either you remain as a colonial power (or at least an enforcer) or chaos ensues which may well spill over outside the country's borders.

Campaign cycles

A typical election cycle moves through three distinct phases. In the first primary voters are exposed to candidates' different personalities and backgrounds. In the second, debate shifts to specific policies, but only those that have survived first round of scrutiny. In the final phase, a choice needs to be made as to which candidate is realistically electable, although this is not always infallible, as perhaps is the case of the election of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK.

In tandem, there is a behind-the-scenes process of fund-raising which needs to keep pace with the spending demands of the psycho. Candidates how cannot raise money at a pace sufficient to keep up with the spending demands for campaign messaging may face the vicious circle of reduced exposure, declining poll numbers, reduced expectations of potential victory, and reduced funding.

This model applies as much to primaries as to the general election.

Trump and Carson will do well in the first phase, largely because pundits and pollsters victims are focused on personality and 'character'. Policy is generally articulated only in broad strokes and sweeping, fact free generalizations and predictably, is unscrutinised by the media.

Over time, the policy details will be prized from them, and in the process light-weights (Trump, Carson, Fiorina) will fall by the way. The interesting question is what then?

Both sides are faced with a prisoner's dilemma. Both want the candidate who reflects their values and antipathy for the other side; for Republicans that's most likely Ted Cruz; for Democrats is Bernie Sanders. But if either side chooses this route (the 'cooperate' option in a PD game) it runs the risk that the other will defect with a rush to the middle ground; the equilibrium is therefore defect-defect, with both sides fielding the centrist candidate, none of whom have any new ideas and whose agendas continue to reflect the main money-providing interest groups.

               
 

Trump's goal

USA Today

Donald Trump portrays himself as the world greatest businessman - ever! And while he's  generally associated with the gaudy buildings on which his name is always prominently emblazoned, he's actually spent much more time over the last decade in entertainment, with the Miss America pageants and his TV show "The Apprentice", than he has in real estate.

And while he has been lauded as a good example of personal branding, arguably it's his reality TV experience that is the most appropriate lens though which to view his presidential run. His campaign is real-time reality TV with Trump as its central (and only) melodramatic character. His appearances and sound-bites, often shocking, are intentionally light on specifics (who needs to be bothered with all that boring and hard to comprehend detail) and intended to stir the emotions. Just like "Real Housewives of Orange County / New York City / New Jersey / Atlanta..." the audience lives vicariously though its central character whose chief appeal is behaving badly.

Whether Trump believes his own hype is questionable; more than likely he is treating this as another brand building exercise. If he is as smart as he claims, he must know that he will never be elected President. But it looks like he'll have some fun running, and in the process, show the world how truly dysfunctional the American political system really is.