The intelligence community often has to deal with nebulous things call indicators rather than substantiated facts. They deal with indications of future actions to predict what someone or some country may do. In that context, there are dubious indicators of the soon-to-be Trump Presidency. One indicator is Trump's policy of "if." He makes assumptions about the future than creates a policy based on "if's." For example, he has said, If you get along and if Russia is really helping us, why would anybody have sanctions if somebodys doing some really great things? Trump urgently wants detente with Russia, and that is well and good, but this policy should not be based on "if's." It should be based on what Russia does, not what she might do some time in the future. In other words, while we all want friendly relations with Russia, any policy regarding Russia should be based on hard-core reality, not fantasy. Trump also is assuming that Russia and the U.S. have a common enemy -- ISIS. That is false. Based on Russia's actions there is no reason to assume Russia looks on ISIS as an enemy. The very opposite is true. Based on past behavior. ISIS targets the West. There is very little doubt that Putin believes ISIS is a problem for the West, not Russia's problem. Indeed, Putin might be silently cheering on the efforts of ISIS for creating pandemonium in Western cities. Then there is China. Since 1979 it has been the policy of the U.S. to recognize only Red China, not Taiwan. Soon after the election the Taiwanese President, Tsai Ing-wen, called and congratulated Trump on his surprising victory. It was a relatively minor incident. However, in view of the one-China policy, it, perhaps, wasn't the brightest thing for Trump to accept the call personally. President-elects aren't supposed to initiate a change in U.S. foreign policy. But, like I said, it was a minor infraction, if an infraction at all. Trump was not finished in trying to change Sino/American relations, and it mattered little to him that we have only one President at a time. Like a bull in a china shop (pardon the pun) Trump boldly told the Wall Street Journal late Friday he would only commit to the One China policy after assessing the progress the worlds second-largest economy makes on trade and currency issues. He added, I would talk to them first, Trump was quoted as saying. Certainly they are manipulators. But Im not looking to do that. What he meant by the last sentence is unclear. Trump often has a problem with syntax, but it is clear he is challenging the one-China policy prior to becoming President. At the very least, he is sending mixed signals to everyone on this issue, and that puts the U.S. in a difficult position. Trump has questioned the U.S.s longstanding policy of recognizing Beijing over the government in Taiwan, and criticized China for a perceived failure to further pressure North Korea over its nuclear program. China fired back. The One-China principle, which is the political foundation of the China-U.S. relations, is non-negotiable, Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Lu Kang said in a statement on the agencys website. To aid him in his relations with China and Russia, along with Syria, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and various other adversaries, Trump desperately needs the intelligence community. So, of course, what does Trump do? Well, he compares the various intelligence agencies to Nazi Germany. Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to leak into the public, Trump wrote on Twitter. One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany? CIA Director John Brennan had this to say about Trump. What I do find outrageous is equating an intelligence community with Nazi Germany, Brennan said on "Fox News Sunday." I do take great umbrage at that, and there is no basis for Mr. Trump to point fingers at the intelligence community for leaking information that was already available publicly. With all this going on, and more, Trump apparently wants to get away from the White House Press Corps. Esquire magazine reported on Saturday that the Trump administration planned to relocate White House reporters from the press room to the White House Conference Center or the Old Executive Office Building next door. Speaking on ABC's "This Week", Priebus said the team discussed moving news conferences out of the small West Wing briefing room to the Old Executive Office, which is part of the White House complex. He said no decision had been made. Both the House Conference Center and the Old Executive Office Building are across the street from the White House. "So no one is moving out of the White House. That is the White House, where you can fit four times the number of people in the press conference, allowing more press, more coverage from all over the country ... That's what we're talking about." Yeah, sure, Reince. Indications are there could be rough sledding ahead unless Trump learns very quickly and he listens to his very capable advisors ... with some possible exceptions.
Still another indicator is that it appears Trump shares Putin's aspirations of weakening NATO. “It’s obsolete, first because it was designed many, many years ago,” Trump said in an interview on Sunday. “Secondly, countries aren’t paying what they should” and NATO “didn’t deal with terrorism.” The Times of London quoted Trump saying that only five NATO members are paying their fair share.
The worst indicator of all is Trump's relationship with the intelligence community. It is almost as if he is trying to bait them. Putin has to be viewing that with amazement, if not glee. CIA Director John Brennan is doing his best to get along with Trump. Brennan implored the President-elect to put his confidence in the intelligence community and develop an "appreciation" for the effect his words could have on national security, for example, China, as discussed in the OP. Brennan said on a Sunday interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace that the CIA was not trying to harm the incoming President or his team. "There is no interest in undermining the President-elect and the team coming in. It's our responsibility to make sure they understand exactly the dangers that are out there," Brennan said. Trump would have none of that. He angrily tweeted, "@FoxNews 'Outgoing CIA Chief, John Brennan, blasts Pres-Elect Trump on Russia threat. Does not fully understand.' Oh really, couldn't do...much worse - just look at Syria (red line), Crimea, Ukraine and the build-up of Russian nukes. Not good! Was this the leaker of Fake News?" "Fake news" seems to be his new mantra. If the news media comes out with something he doesn't like, it must be "fake news." There is virtually no evidence that Brennan or any member of the intelligence community provided the leak of the conference in the Trump Tower on Friday. How wise is it for Trump to anger the intelligence community that he will have to rely on when he becomes President? Why is he going out of his way to attack the intelligence agencies? Putin must be pleased. Combined with the fact that for weeks Trump didn't believe them regarding Russian interference in our election, Trump's interaction with the intelligence community is a very bad omen.
In a call with EU leadership, Trump transition officials asked which country would be next to leave the bloc, the departing U.S. ambassador to the EU, Anthony Gardner, said Friday. He suggested the call pointed to a Euroskeptic outlook within the new administration. Gardner said the Trump team’s views on Europe — that the EU is dysfunctional and unraveling — were already clear in Brussels. “It’s not a surprise, right,” he said. “That’s what is the mentality of this team: this thing is falling apart. Who’s next?” http://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-officials-ask-which-country-will-be-next-to-eu-exit/ Hmmm, Putin would like nothing better than for the EU to collapse.
"Europe's fate is in our hands.":this was Angela Merkel's defiant reply to Trump. The Guardian reports, "Angela Merkel and François Hollande have responded curtly but defiantly after Donald Trump cast further doubt on his commitment to Nato and gave strong hints that he would not support EU cohesion once in office." In the Times of London interview, Trump complained that NATO had become “obsolete” because it “hadn’t taken care of terror” – a comment later welcomed by the Kremlin. He suggested that other European countries would follow in Britain’s footsteps and leave the EU. “We Europeans have our fate in our own hands,” the German chancellor said after the publication of the US president-elect’s interviews with the Times and German tabloid Bild. On the other hand, Trump is suggesting the U.S. and Russia should work together. He recently tweeted, "both countries will, perhaps, work together to solve some of the many great and pressing problems and issues of the WORLD!" All this begs a question. The nations of Western Europe are our allies, and that has been true for over two centuries. Russia has been our avowed enemy ever since the end of WWII and the era of the Cold War. Russia's recent activity, including interference in our election, suggests nothing has changed. Everyone wants better relations with Russia, but the question should be asked because Russia is our enemy until she proves different and not before that time. Why is Trump angering our friends and embracing our enemy?
I haven't been able to get readers to respond to this thread. I'm hoping, now that Trump is President, maybe some will take a look at these issues. I think they are important.
