4D Chess: The Syrian Strike was Necessary

20170130_iran1_0.jpg

The Trumposphere is alive with denunciations from his closest supporters. Milo, Ann, Watson, and even Alex Jones are all up in arms about the missile strike into Syria. They are all wrong.

If you want the promise of jobs fulfilled, more equitable trade terms with China, and a handle on North Korea then this strike was necessary.

China not Syria

In my previous piece “Why Russia?” I explained that in the mind of President Trump the primary concern is economic. Everything else comes after that. The primary target of this strike was China not Syria. Syria is just a convenient excuse to launch missiles. Think about the timing of the event. It could have happened a couple of days later or a couple of days earlier and the reaction of Syria, Russia, Democrats, and Republicans would have been largely the same. Yet it happened right before President Trump was due to meet with President Xi of China to discuss trade and the North Korean situation. Hours before that meeting he was treated to a live show of US missiles being launched for the first time in a long time.  Just to put a sense of perspective the US used around 120 tomahawk missiles in Libya according to Forbes.

Shows of force like this are important. Syria does not exist in a vacuum. Since the red line proclamation of President Obama China has viewed the US as a paper tiger. In their mind we have all the military power in the world but are unable to muster the necessary political will to use it. This leads to a more belligerent trade policy from them, a more aggressive stance in the southeast china sea, and more aggressive stances from their satellite nations like North Korea. In this case the target was less important than the fact that force was used.

Equally important is the fact that this kills the Russia narrative of the Democrats. Russia has a strong army and a good geopolitical position vis a vis China which makes them a necessary ally in dealing with them in the future. With their narrative the democrats were making it difficult to exert the proper pressure on China using Russia.

Not an Escalation

The strike destroyed one airbase and killed around 6 people. That is not out of the ordinary in the middle east. If you were to have a missile strike New York and kill 6 people it would be a national scandal. If the same thing happens in the Middle East it would be just another Tuesday. Little Shalifa who has been sent by her parents to suicide bomb a building would have killed more people when she claimed her 99 virgin barbie dolls with the great pedophile in the sky.

When we look at the middle east we have to remember to judge things by their standards. For something to be an escalation in that savage part of the world it would have to be a lot more than one airstrike that kills 6 random people.

To the Trumposphere

Everyone wants Trump to succeed. We want those jobs back, we want better terms with China, and we want other countries to live up to their obligations to us. How is Trump supposed to accomplish that if other countries do not believe that we are willing to use our military at some point?

At the end of the day our primary argument for everything that Trump is trying to accomplish is that we are more important to you than you are to us. If Mexico does not give way we would have an easier time finding a market for our exports than they would for theirs. If China or North Korea does not give way then we are more powerful than them and could take what we needed or move them out of the way.

If you are like Ann Coulter, Milo, or the others who want Trump to succeed then asking him to tie one hand behind his back is counterproductive. In fact your insistence on it may guarantee failure. At the end of the day Trump has 4 years to prove himself and his promises. We have to give him the freedom to employ the different negotiation techniques that he needs. Let us try and refrain from acting like democrats and demanding that Trump be deposed at the drop of a hat.

Trump Defeats the Intelligence Community

I-spy.png

It is no secret to everyone that there has been some friction between the Trump administration and the intelligence community. Particularly those members of the intelligence community who identified as democrats or neoconservatives who want a harder line with countries like Russia. Various leaks were given to the media, though we can never be sure of their authenticity they are there and floating around the zeitgeist. The democrats have been uncharacteristically pleased with the efforts of the IC to undermine Trump as well.

The Breaking

There is one simple rule about Trump that makes me love him more than any other leader. When someone hits you, the retaliation must be certain and disproportionate. We saw this in the primaries. He initially did not care about Cruz and was in fact very cordial to him. Till Cruz went after him and he went after him hard. Trump endorsed Romney in 2012 and when Romney went after him we heard a speech about how Romney went down on his knees. Trump has mastered the art of escalation and brinksmanship as his long list of surrendered foes show.

The IC tried to take Trump on at this game as well with disastrous results. The IC took days to leak details about the Trump administration. Trump did voice some complaints about it but never really fought back. That is until one day we saw wikileaks release Vault 7. The largest leak since the days of Edward Snowden which exposed a lot of the innermost secrets of the CIA. The Trump administration will never admit to being behind the leaks or even facilitating it but the timing speaks for itself. The CIA is now scrambling to explain itself to a populace who has just found out that their Samsung TV’s are being used as listening devices and other intelligence agencies are wondering if they will be next.

This is not to say that there will be absolutely no leaks from this department in the future. There are always lone wolves with axes to grind. What I am saying is that institutional resistance from the IC is over.

Popular Support

This is the primary mistake of the IC. All institutions whether public or private need support from the public to survive. This acts as your shield against the government as the higher your support is the more political capital it would take to enact legislation against you or question your activities. The inverse is also true if you have no support from the public or worse if the public hates your institution then the political class may actually gain political capital by targeting you. Take Planned Parenthood for example and the NRA. They are very popular with the left and the right respectively. Any moves by Democrats against PP or Republicans against the NRA would cost a lot of political capital. Now take banks for example. They are universally hated by the left and the right so they have to spend a lot of money on lobbying efforts just to make sure there is no legislation against them.

The IC used to be in the same category as the PP or NRA where they would get a lot of support in one side of the political spectrum. By misplaying their hand against Trump they have moved towards the category of banks or those institutions disliked by both sides. Traditionally Republicans have always supported the IC. In debates of security versus privacy like in the Apple issue in the past Republicans generally take the side of the IC which requested for Apple to hack the phone and Democrats take the side of privacy advocates which say it is a security risk. On questions of torture the Republicans generally take the side of the IC more in understanding its necessity while the Democrats generally stand up for the human rights of enemy combatants.

When the IC went after Trump they gambled that the Republican voters would support them over the President and they gambled wrong. It was a very hard sell for the voters as well as they had just won majorities in both elected branches of government and were very satisfied with the selection made by Trump to the Supreme Court. It was absolutely the wrong time for the IC to break with their strongest supporters. When the Vault 7 leaks broke out the usual voices on the right were silent. After all they had just spent weeks defending the President from the IC. This put the Democratic pundits in the awkward situation of having to defend the newly revealed capability of the IC. All the while trying to unify the party with the disaffected Bernie wing, some of which would be perfectly happy disbanding the IC or at the very least impose so many regulations and requirements in the name of transparency which would make the agencies useless. This means that the pundits aligned with the Democratic party are not able to defend them as hard as they could.

To sum up this article. The IC went up against Trump. Suffered one of its largest leaks in history. Then they also lost the support of the segment of the public who usually defend them, all the while still being hated by half the democrats.

4D Chess: Sanctuary Cities

sf-poster-boy-nrd-990

Today I’d like to discuss what I consider to be the most brilliant 4d chess move of President Trump to date. Sanctuary Cities. My personal moniker for it is “Operation turn Illinois and New York red.”

As everyone knows Trump ran on a platform that is against illegal immigration. Appointing Senator Sessions as Attorney General also shows that he is serious about this particular campaign pledge. It was then leaked that sanctuary cities may lose federal funding. This then prompted numerous cities in mainly democratic held areas like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles to promise that they would stay as sanctuary cities no matter what happened.

So who is the target? This is aimed at the poor and middle class citizens living in the big cities. If you recall in the election Trump overwhelmingly won the rural areas, was competitive in the suburbs, and normally lost in the cities themselves. Making inroads into some of these places means that future elections will be easier to win.

Under normal situations the democrats would be able to choose how to react. However due to their over the top fear mongering during the election they cannot choose to capitulate to Trump and help with the deportations. Their base would revolt. The only option they have is doubling down on their protection for illegal immigrants which is the best result Trump could hope for.

Let us analyze what the most likely scenario is. You have a President saying that he will let ICE and other enforcement agencies fulfill their duties while you have liberal cities declaring they will protect illegals come what may. An illegal alien has two options. He can either stay where he is and risk deportation or move to a city that guarantees he will be protected. Naturally some if not most will decide to move.

What happens if they move? First off they vacate the jobs they currently have and make it available to the citizens in the area. Will it be a good job? Most likely not, but it will still be required to pay minimum wage and the person working now spends all his money in the local community instead of sending half of it abroad to their home country, leading to more jobs being created in their home community. This helps fulfill the promise of more jobs.

What happens to the cities that the illegals go too? Logically once the illegals go there they will need a place to stay and they will need a source of income. Cities generally have limited space, an influx of new arrivals would mean that rental prices go up. There is also a limited number of available jobs. When the illegals get there they have an competitive advantage over the residents as they are willing to work for wages below the minimum which means that they will push out some of the current residents. Of course not all illegals will be able to find jobs so some will inevitably end up turning to crime to survive.

You can make an argument that when new residents arrive in an area they can be a positive impact on the area. Yet when new residents arrive they usually bring with them money, have a job and a place to stay waiting as well. Illegals would not be likely to have any of this.

We now have a situation where the poor and middle classes in the sanctuary cities face increased competition from illegals and possible exposure to more crimes. Any jobs taken by the illegals will contribute less to the community as well as some of the money will have to be sent abroad. Can they take out their anger on Trump? Sure that it is a possibility, but they are starting of as democratic strongholds already so it would not matter. Their ire would eventually fall on their local leaders who inflicted this upon them by forcing their cities to be sanctuaries which gets them to turn on them and vote for the other team or not vote at all.

A more extreme version of this is already happening in Germany as Merkel effectively declared the EU one giant sanctuary city with predictable effects. Of course we don’t expect our crop of illegals to be as violent as the islamic refugees so the process may take longer but with this 4-d chess move I fully expect Trump and his successor to be competitive in the cities in 4 or 8 years.

4D Chess: General Mattis

 

nindjak

Hi everyone! I’m back and this is my first article since our friendly neighborhood God Emperor has been elected. I though I would begin by explaining some of President Trump’s latest moves from a 4d chess perspective.

As most of you know 4d chess is on of Trump’s specialties. At its core it is a move where the opposing side has no good responses. Any reaction they take would benefit Trump. I am starting with General Mattis as this one is fairly easy to explain and would help me get back into the groove of writing. In the future I will expand this to the flag burning tweet, the Boeing deal and other issues.

In articles like this ill begin by describing the issue briefly, then I will point out the specific group the move is targeted to influence. Lastly I will show the two main responses to the action by Trump and how they both end positively for him.

As everyone knows General Mattis has been appointed as Secretary of Defense. Mattis is unique in that he is one of the few appointments by Trump that the democrats could block straight out. The Republicans would most likely vote as a block to grant the exception and friendly democrats such as Manchin and Heitkamp would mostly likely vote with them. Even with these defections and defections from every other Ruby Red state the democrats would still hold enough votes to block the nomination. Yet you are already hearing rumblings that democrats are waiving the white flag on a Mattis appointment.

Who does this move target? This move benefits Trump with two possible groups. First of is the group of democrats who are already dissatisfied with the way the democratic party has been handled. These would include the supporters of Bernie Sanders who are now backing Keith Ellison. Basically the progressive wing of the party. The second group it benefits Trump with is the military and swing voters.

Mattis is nearly universally loved by the military. If you have a relative serving ask them about him and you would most likely receive glowing praise. Some of this has to do with who Mattis is and the fact that he started as an enlisted person as opposed to being an officer so he would know the struggles of the infantry. Mostly though they feel Mattis will return a sense of sanity and realism to the rules of engagement which make it hard for the military to function. Even bystanders who are initially put off by the Mad Dog moniker and the Mattis quotes you see everywhere grow to like him the more they find out.

Democrats have two basic options. Deny or grant. If you grant the waiver then you look very weak to the progressive wing of the party. They are the least receptive to an officer like Mattis and see the democratic leadership shying away from a fight it could have easily won. This of course increases the divide inside the party and increases the likely hood that these voters stay home in 2018. This is critical because there is a wave of democrats in ruby-red or swing states that do not necessarily align with the progressive side which the GOP will aim to unseat.

If the democrats deny the grant they look bad to the military and independent voters, such as the working class in swing states. Most of the military vote GOP but some still do vote blue. This alienates them further from the democrats. The swing voters see someone who is perfectly capable, in fact he may be the best pick Trump has made so far, getting denied because of partisan politics.

Either way Trump wins.