Wednesday 11 May 2016
Photo, left: The pro-independence opposition candidate of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Tsai Ing-wen (59), has been elected the first female and fourteenth president of Taiwan
JOHN BATCHELOR SHOW
Co-hosts: Gordon Chang, Forbes.com & Daily Beast. Captain Jerry Hendrix (USN ret.), Center for a New American Security.
Hour One
Wednesday 11 May 2016 / Hour 1, Block A: Jerry Hendrix, in re: recent events — Baltic, Kaliningrad, F-22 restart, alternative force structure study. Fiery Cross, Scarborough Shoal. The US Navy has been sailing in these waters since WWII, and heavily in the last days. The John C Stennis (an entire carrier group) has been operating in the South China Sea through April; thought maybe other carrier groups might. It’s now China looking at the G7 group, and Pres Obama visiting Japan – it's clearly China vs the entire Western world. Not only mil pressure but also diplomatic. In advance of the freedom of navigation op, gossip was that the White House wasn’t eager for FON passage, but the region, itself, has demanded US leadership. We hear there’s a 3,000 meter runway of Fiery Cross; we've watched China install radar and surface-to-air systems; Fiery Cross is in process of being weaponized. A2 – anti-access and denial environment. For China: If nothing gets in, nothing gets out – including Chinese trade. Gordon: Nobody builds a 2-mi runway for a Cessna. The runway s deep: built to support military logistic aircraft. China is sending craft to shadow US craft. Regional nations see the problem. http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/2016/05/08/navy-fleet-future-architecture-aircraft-carrier-cno-richardson-csba-bryan-clark-force-structure-mccain/84002628
US Navy Confronts the China Aggressor. @GordonGChang. @JerryHendrix11. Zack Cooper, Center for Strategic and International Studies. Kelley Sayler, CNAS. Commander Brendan Stickles, USN.
“China scrambled fighter jets on Tuesday as a U.S. navy ship sailed close to a disputed reef in the South China Sea, a patrol China denounced as an illegal threat to peace which only went to show its defense installations in the area were necessary.
“Guided missile destroyer the USS William P. Lawrence traveled within 12 nautical miles (22 km) of Chinese-occupied Fiery Cross Reef, U.S. Defense Department spokesman Bill Urban said.
“The so-called freedom of navigation operation was undertaken to "challenge excessive maritime claims" by China, Taiwan, and Vietnam which were seeking to restrict navigation rights in the South China Sea, Urban said.
"These excessive maritime claims are inconsistent with international law as reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention in that they purport to restrict the navigation rights that the United States and all states are entitled to exercise," Urban said in an emailed statement.
“China and the United States have traded accusations of militarizing the South China Sea as China undertakes large-scale land reclamation and construction on disputed features while the United States has increased its patrols and exercises….” http://warontherocks.com/2016/05/successful-signaling-at-scarborough-shoal/ ; http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/2016/05/08/navy-fleet-future-architecture-aircraft-carrier-cno-richardson-csba-bryan-clark-force-structure-mccain/84002628/ ; http://www.cnas.org/growing-threat-to-us-aircraft-carriers#.VzCZUWNUP0c
Wednesday 11 May 2016 / Hour 1, Block B: Zack Cooper, Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies, to discuss his recent essay at War on the Rocks, Successful Signaling at Scarborough Shoals, this is a very insightful essay that suggests we may be winning. Will talk with you offline about this more. We’re awaiting a Hague Court decision on the matter. The third FON that just occurred at FCR shows that the US will sail wherever legally allowed, but did not do so at Mischief Reef, which would directly have challenged China’s [sovereignty] over it; USN chose a compromise solution.
Kerry said that the Senkakus are covered by US-Japan treaty. Has the US said anything like that anent Scarborough Shoal? A fascinating question: in 1979 and 199, US officials made statements seeming to say that the US-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty does. This treaty relationship is the US’s oldest in that region; recently been given access to five air bases & one army base. Duarte, just elected in Philippines, is called “their Donald Trump.” Important that the US have bases access; has few enough in SE Asia, and also this multiplies the concerns for China. Duarte has been saying he’ll go there on a jet ski; but to uphold Filipino claims in South China Sea, he may have to rely on US. Also: “China will make land reclamation” [Note: this is not “reclamation,” as the land has never before existed so cannot have been claimed, and definitely not re-claimed.] on Scarborough Shoals. Are they bluffing?
Many believe there’s little the US can do, but we can oblige China to think about whether or not it's worth the risk to go up against the US mil. US has used A10s and carriers; I think that’s a serious clarification. China will keep pushing the issues; the WH will have to respond each time. Gordon: We could crowd Scarborough Shoals with US vessels, there in bulk/en masse. Zack: Can he US go within 12 nautical miles without in fact being forced in there by Philippines and the treaty? – that is, if the US entered those waters would that automatically activate the treaty? http://warontherocks.com/2016/05/successful-signaling-at-scarborough-shoal/
Wednesday 11 May 2016 / Hour 1, Block C: Kelley Sayler, Associate Fellow, Center for a New American Security, to discuss her recent paper, “Red Alert: The Growing Threat to the Aircraft Carrier,” wherein she examines recent investments in A2AD technologies, mostly by China but more recently by Russia, that target the carrier. . . . When US ships were out in early December from Hawaii and returned to find the whole of Pearl Harbor in flames, they were immediately sent out again to work. Last Sept, China celebrated the 70th anniversary of defeat of Japan (in which China played zero part), with Putin . . . Anti-access area denial ;. . . the road-mobile DF21D, long-range capable of targeting aircraft carriers, and the newer one that can reach Guam. Five years ago a diesel sub popped up next to a US carrier group, surprising the US. Advanced air-defense system, anti-ship cruise missiles, and subs. Proliferating vertically, adding to the difficult, US cannot easily deal with a multidirectional attack.
Increasingly complex threat envt. Ballistic missile comes in nearly vertical. Your article has a graph showing the layering . We don't have a good defense against cruise missiles: it launches, then on approach goes into sea-skipping mode and zigzagging. China is deploying these on [many of he bogus islands China has built only in order to claim a circumference of seawater]. Many of he missiles on Chinese mainland are road-mobile, can reach Australia, inter al. The Stennis group there now projecting power; could China neutralize them now? It could, but [the US sailings are] an important signal of intent; that would be an act of war, not one that I think China wants to cross right now - but a possibility in future. . . . The benefit to us is that they're fixed locations and so known to us.
“Red Alert: The Growing Threat to the Aircraft Carrier”
http://www.cnas.org/growing-threat-to-us-aircraft-carriers#.VzCZUWNUP0c
Wednesday 11 May 2016 / Hour 1, Block D: Commander Brendan Stickles, USN (Active Duty), who has written a brave and exciting article in the US Naval Institute’s Proceedings journal called “Twilight of Manned Flight.” [a finalist in the General Prize Essay section] . . . We measure success by the safe return of all our people and everyone we're supporting. The qualifications of unmanned aircraft as well as its ability to land at night. Think of this as a civilian: Tesla wasn’t a division of Ford: large, successful orgs have trouble with disruptive technology. It's rare to innovate yourself out of a job. . . . The Predator drone is controlled from a distance; the MQXX is not remote-control; it decides and executes. Of my personal flight time, 90% is training for combat. Think about the efficiencies and operational capability with vehicles that has no eyeballs doesn't need to sleep or breather . . . Our adversaries, anent robots that go forever? This autonomous vehicle can run for 36 hours. Anticipation of unmanned drones from Russia and China, but probably not too soon. Growlers that you fly routinely? --I’m a drug addict on flying so I’ll always take more Growlers. As the threat grows more robust, nonkinetic assets (which we are) [grow more important]. http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2016-04/twilight-manned-flight
[Commander Stickles is the executive officer of Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 130. He has more than 2,500 flight hours and 350 traps in EA-6B, F/A-18, and EA-18G aircraft. A 1999 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, he has an MBA from the University of North Carolina and a master’s degree in public administration from Harvard University. During his career he spent only one year out of the cockpit, and despite what he says in this article will never, under any circumstance, fly a drone.]
Hour Two
Wednesday 11 May 2016 / Hour 2, Block A: Bill Gertz, senior editor of the Washington Free Beacon, in re: Gucifer hacked in to John Kerry’s accounts. The Obama Adm cybersecurity, etc., so far: and incomplete response. . . . Gucifer wasn't an enemy; he was just fooling around. The problem is that the Net is a lawless event. For example, there’s no court to take Gucifer to.
Office of Personnel Management (OPM): 22 million records stolen and used for counter intell and cyberattack. US firms currently are forbidden to “hack back,” yet the US govt does: nothing at all. There’s a debate in process in intelligence services, Department of Jusctice, and others: “We must show a cyber force or there’ll be no deterrent.” When you raise the cost, that’s a deterrent. The White House wants not to. Panetta: The WH has short-circuited the entire constitutional system – uses Executive decisions and Ben Rhodes. The chief US counterintell official: “US loses $400 bil per year – and 90% of the attacks come from China” It's high time for a reevaluation. Bad actors –probably Iranian – hacked into a hydroelectric facility in southern New York State. What ‘s an adequate response to a bad actor here? 1. The infrastructure of hacking the New York dam: an extreme vulnerability– industrial systems are much different from laptops; these are old, vulnerable. So first we need to modernize industrial systems. 2. Make it clear that there’s a cost: if the attack is domestic, go to US court; if from overseas, launch some kind of counter cyber attack, to reclaim the data or disable the perp’s systems. Note that the Iranians also went after major, money-center banks. (Office of Personnel Management and Anthem were both seriously attacked.) . . . You're right: if a major system breakdown, we civilians have no way to know if it’s a major security hack from an enemy, or not. http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-policies-toward-hackers-produce-few-results/
“The indictments are largely symbolic, since none of the Iranians or Syrians are within reach of U.S. law enforcement and the chances the hackers will ever face justice in a courtroom are slim.
Like many of President Obama’s foreign policies, the indictments appear designed to provide the president and his administration with political cover by adopting seemingly proactive measures, but without having much impact.
The approach to cyber threats coincides with the president’s generally pacifistic approach to foreign affairs, which he is reported to have summed up as “don’t do stupid shit.” In practice, this approach often amounts to doing as little as possible, and doing nothing that might require the use of military force.
The policy was captured in a New York Times profile last week of Ben Rhodes, the White House deputy national security adviser for communications who was described as “The Boy Wonder” of the White House.
Leon Panetta, who served as CIA director and defense secretary under Obama, explained that the president’s approach to foreign affairs has been dominated by the desire to avoid possible conflicts. “I think the whole legacy that he was working on was, ‘I’m the guy who’s going to bring these wars to an end, and the last goddamn thing I need is to start another war,’” Panetta said of Obama’s approach to Iran and the nuclear deal. The former defense secretary said the president believes that “if you ratchet up sanctions, it could cause a war. If you start opposing their interests in Syria, well, that could start a war, too.”…
Wednesday 11 May 2016 / Hour 2, Block B: Joe Bosco, senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in re: Taiwan’s ne president, Mme Tsai Ing-wen, is the rare person to have won a legitimate Chinese election in history. . . . Pres Obama sent Biden to meet Chinese Pres Xi; so send him to Taipei now. Is there evidence that the US Navy takes advantage to Taiwan’s counter to Chinese aggression in the entire region? China prides itself on doing things asymmetrically; this would be a nice way for us to show that we can play that game, too. You committed to Pres Obama not to militarize the South China Sea – which you’ve abrogated – so we’ll applaud Taiwan’s electoral elegance. This is an important relationship to us and we’ll defend it. Btw, Taiwan is in the South China Sea; on 7 Dec 1941, Japan attacked not only Pearl Harbor but also the Philippines – from Taiwan.
Tsai Ing-wen takes office in a few days; Beijing is already pressuring her by adding problem in Taiwan’s UN status and trying to damage Taiwan’s relations in Africa. Recall that Taiwan’s position on many of the sea claims is close to that of Beijing; however, Ma Ying-jeou [the departing president of Taiwan, long considered an embarrassing stooge to the unelected tyrants of Beijing] has been madly sympathetic to Beijing, and Mme Tsai may take a different tack! http://thediplomat.com/2016/04/why-the-us-should-send-biden-to-taiwan/
Next month’s inauguration of Tsai Ing-wen as president of Taiwan offers a unique opportunity for Washington to address two fraught issues in U.S.-China relations.
First, sending an appropriate high-level American official to Taipei would signal U.S. commitment to the democratic security of Taiwan in the face of Beijing’s intensifying pressure.
Second, it would elevate Taiwan’s status as a regional security ally, while using a diplomatic/political tool to respond to China’s increasingly aggressive moves.
The sweeping victory of Tsai and her Democratic Progressive Party rankles Beijing for good reason. The Taiwanese people soundly rejected deeper political ties with China, let alone any prospect of unification.
Tsai was circumspect in discussing the cross-strait political and security situation during the campaign and in her victory speech. But her noncommittal stance on “one China” is unacceptable to Beijing.
China’s 2005 Anti-Secession Law threatens the use of force against Taiwan not only if it declares formal independence but also if “possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted” – a contingency Beijing may have decided has now arrived. Henry Kissinger warned Taiwan in 2007 that “China will not wait forever.” And Xi Jinping said in 2013, “the [Taiwan] issue cannot be passed on from generation to generation.”
Yet, even the Kuomintang Party under President Ma Ying-jeou said unification could be considered only with a democratic China. But Beijing never seems to grasp that the more it threatens Taiwan, the more it alienates younger generations of Taiwanese —as they see how China treats the people of Hong Kong under the “one country, two systems” model Deng Xiaoping offered both societies. The Obama administration should make clear that the Taiwanese people are entitled to determine their relationship with China, without force or coercion from Beijing. http://thediplomat.com/2016/04/why-the-us-should-send-biden-to-taiwan/ ; http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/05/10/kim-emerges-more-confident-and-powerful-north-koreas-congress/84173972/ ; http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435254/donald-trumps-tax-returns-delegates-should-abstain-if-he-wont-release
Wednesday 11 May 2016 / Hour 2, Block C: Bob Collins, 37-year veteran adviser to the Department of Defense, in re: the just-past North Korean Congress: first one held in 36years; Kim Jon-eun got a new title and showed up in a fabulous Italian suit. South Korean media discussed hit in detail. Kim is trying to be more similar to his grandfather than his father– whose title was Party Chairman; and establishing new Party organizations to balance better the govt and the Party; also reduction of military billets in the decision-making process. Must have some unhappy admirals and generals. Kim Jong-il let the military take more power; Eun now moves power center back toward the Party. . . . the nuclear weapon is to ensure that the Party’s power won't be challenged. Eun said, “Don't mess with us and we won't use nukes” – this may be close to accurate. Eun sees that he needs the older, experienced generation to run the country. Eun links his regime to someone popular: his grandfather rather than his dad, who was not popular. As for the generals’s striking back: they're monitored to the nth degree; many have been purged and executed.
“Leave us alone and we won’t use nukes” – sounds defensive and whining. They parse their words to serve the moment; a week from now could be different. Obama spoke of ringing North Korea with a missile shield. Problem with the advice that goes to Eun is that they don't know what the technology is, haven't got that level of science; so we can say “We can do X and you can’t.” A five-year plan for economic dvpt? Sanctions will hurt them in the long run- it takes a while for the sanctions to take effect and we’d need participation by all intl actors [good luck with China, Iran and Pakistan --ed.]. They'll keep testing and use the line of, We won't attack unless provoked. Defense lines are oriented by the Party, not the military. An unchanged failed state.http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/05/10/kim-emerges-more-confident-and-powerful-north-koreas-congress/84173972/
Wednesday 11 May 2016 / Hour 2, Block D: John Fund, NRO, in re: Donald Trump’s taxes. . . . Primary voters who endorsed Trump have reason to question his reversal on releasing taxes; will he do so? Before election? Before convention? Even Richard Nixon released his returns, an all candidates have since then, Trump promised to and says he won't. Well, I can’t, since they're all connected to the returns being audited. A three-card monte shell game; the longer he prevaricates, the more this will be a damaging story if there’s an October surprise and the White House . . . Trump’s electoral college committees are concerned; this could all lose GOP control of the House, the Senate, and any possible conservative Court. . . . Reason to think he owns a lot less money than he claims. Possible overseas investments look bad, also tax shelters, and he pays less tax than his secretary does; doesn't give money to veterans – in fact, after the Iowa rally, he seems not to have turned over the funds to veterans hardly at all. Is it true that Trump voters don't care about the IRS? Yes, for many; but Trump has 38-41% of the vote, which doesn't win. If he wants to win women and people concerned about honesty, he has to release his tax returns. In the past, Trump has issued documents so redacted they can't be read. When Trump sued a New York Times reporter over the amount the reporter said Trump was worth, the court was disdainful of Trump’s submissions. I’ve interviewed four of the five living IRS commissioners: there’s only one way you get audited for twelve straight years: you take such an aggressive stance in [edgy] matters that you get labelled as a permanent bad boy gaming the system. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435254/donald-trumps-tax-returns-delegates-should-abstain-if-he-wont-release ; https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/05/11/trump-created-the-grounds-for-a-contested-convention/?postshare=9691462988209668&tid=ss_tw
Hour Three
Wednesday 11 May 2016 / Hour 3, Block A: Monica Crowley, Fox, & Washington Times Online opinion editor; in re: FBI Searches Emails. Republicans Search for Unity. "We want to do it well and we want to do it promptly. I feel pressure to do both of those things," Comey told reporters during a roundtable at FBI headquarters. "As between the two things, we will always choose 'well.'" Comey indicated he's not taking into account political events, including the upcoming conventions or the fall election. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-investigation-fbi-james-comey-223071#ixzz48OitX4Z9
Wednesday 11 May 2016 / Hour 3, Block B: Monica Crowley, Fox, & Washington Times Online opinion editor; in re: But among conservatives there are still reservations, especially about the evolving positions the GOP nominee has taken on a broad range of issues. At Wednesday's closed-door meeting, several members urged Ryan to raise policy priorities they have championed when he sits down with Trump on Thursday.
Specifically, they want Ryan to press Trump about his positions on abortion, budget and spending issues, and reforms to Medicare and Social Security. Other Republicans urged Ryan to caution the presumptive nominee that if he makes more controversial statements, like suggesting riots would occur if he were denied the GOP nomination, it will make those running on the same ticket as Trump in November uncomfortable to link themselves to their nominee. http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/11/politics/paul-ryan-donald-trump-house-republicans/ ; http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-investigatio...
Wednesday 11 May 2016 / Hour 3, Block C: Monica Crowley, Fox, & Washington Times Online opinion editor (3 of 4)
Wednesday 11 May 2016 / Hour 3, Block D: Monica Crowley, Fox, & Washington Times Online opinion editor (4 of 4)
See also: http://cookpolitical.com/presidential/charts/scorecard (from May 4)
Jennifer Rubin at WaPo: Through much of the primary process, Donald Trump promised, like every other major-party presidential candidate in the past four decades or so, to release his tax returns. Then he said he was being “audited” for some years so he could not release returns. Now he says he will not do so before the November election, setting up a bizarre situation in which he and voters will likely know about his running mate’s tax history but not Trump’s.
This is not only unprecedented, but it also goes to the heart of the Trump campaign. He’s sold himself as a successful billionaire, one who wants the United States to “win” and who deplores foreign countries and illegal immigrants “stealing” our jobs. But what if his tax returns show he is much poorer than he has ever admitted, has shady foreign investments and tax havens, has given little in charity (or only to left-wing groups), or in fact has been audited and found to have violated tax laws? The entire Trump image crumbles.
Moreover, there is a fundamental principle of fairness at work here. He said he would do release his returns, and people voted for him with the confidence that we would dispel any notion of a hidden bombshell. Delegates were selected and pledged to him on that basis. Now, the GOP faces the potential for its nominee, through leaks and hacks, to have damaging tax records released — when it is too late for the party to do anything about it. This is unconscionable. In fact, it’s an issue the #NeverTrump forces have been raising:
Delegates can do something about this. Indeed, they are obligated to for the sake of the party.
Remember, as one delegate expert put it, ““The only way delegates will be bound is if, when they vote on the rules of the convention, they vote to bind themselves. Otherwise, they’re not.” Put differently, delegates control their destiny. Curly Haugland, the delegate guru, has a million maneuvers and potential rule changes up his sleeve for challenging Trump. Now he has a simple, effective one: Pass a rule that says the nominee, who promised to release his taxes, must do so in order to have his name put in for nomination. Such a rule could easily pass when you consider there are nearly 900 delegates pledged to other candidates and a great number of Trump delegates are reluctantly so. It is entirely possible to come up with a majority of delegates to insist on adoption of the rule. In fact, the Republican National Committee, which has refused to look out for the party’s long-term reputation, should insist on it as an institutional safeguard. . . .
Hour Four
Wednesday 11 May 2016 / Hour 4, Block A: Charles Ortel, charlesortel.com, in re: Wall Street Whistleblower Turns His Scrutiny on the Clinton Foundation Charles Ortel: ‘This is a charity fraud’ The Wall Street analyst who uncovered financial discrepancies at General Electric before its stock crashed in 2008 claims the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation has a number of irregularities in its tax records and could be violating state laws.
Charles Ortel, a longtime financial adviser, said he has spent the past 15 months digging into the Clinton Foundation’s public records, federal and state-level tax filings, and donor disclosures. That includes records from the foundation’s many offshoots—including the Clinton Health Access Initiative and the Clinton Global Initiative—as well as its foreign subsidiaries.
According to Ortel’s reports, the contribution disclosures from the Clinton Foundation don’t match up with individual donors’ records. He also argued that the foundation is not in compliance with some state laws regarding fundraising registration, disclosure requirements, and auditing rules. This week, Ortel is starting to release his findings in the first of a series of . . . http://freebeacon.com/issues/wall-street-whistleblower-turns-scrutiny-cl...
Wednesday 11 May 2016 / Hour 4, Block B: Sebastian v Gorka, Marine Corps University, in re: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/munich-stabbing-suspected-islamist-shouts-allahu-akbar-before-launching-attack-at-railway-station-in-a7021816.html ; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/10/one-man-dead-after-attacker-heard-shouting-allahu-akbar-knifes-m/ ; http://www.reuters.com/article/us-minnesota-security-idUSKCN0Y216Q ; http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/05/10/Justice-Department-will-not-seek-death-penalty-for-Benghazi-attack/1111462930023/
Wednesday 11 May 2016 / Hour 4, Block C: Aaron Klein, Breitbart Middle East Bureau Chief, in re: Jerusalem Responds to Rhodes. Iran Responds to Failure. http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/ (1 of 2)
Wednesday 11 May 2016 / Hour 4, Block D: Aaron Klein, Breitbart Middle East Bureau Chief, in re: More Rhodes. People keeping um because they still have to deal with Pres Obama. (2 of 2)
.. .. ..