LyrArc Article Gist
Over 50% of Israelis support Iran war, only 30% oppose. As Israelis see it Iran under religious clerics is the only real threat to Israel in 2025 because of Iran's policy of proxies for attacking Israel in Lebanon and in Gaza, and because of it's development of nuclear weapons and openly threatening Israel. The US involvement in Iranian politics dates from the Dulles and Eisenhower era with the CIA's involvement in the overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian prime minister Mossadegh in 1953. Working with British intelligence and for British oil interests, US oil interests, the US made a serious mistake as seen from today's perspective. The moral is British or French colonial policy stay from it America- George Washington himself would advise. Israel is paying the price and is asked to correct what was done by the British in Iran since 1850's- to bring back a peaceful democracy with the kind of struggles even Greece experienced. The unelected wholly unrepresentative government of the Shah who was put in the place of a democratically elected government was a serious mistake. The British and French colonialism and oil interests of Britain plus American oil companies have led to US getting on the wrong side of the Vietnamese people in the war in Vietnam against the French that ended at the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954. It had repercussions in the Vietnam war under Kennedy and Johnson. This has happened in the case of Iran where the US has gained so little and lost so much in lives and resources sunk in the ensuing was in Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Yemen. The European Union suffered from the huge migrant flow from Syria with splits in its ranks. The distractions of these 30 years through Reagan and Rumsfeld who supported Hussein in Iraq against Iran in a balancing act is now foolishness, of elder Bush as he diverted attention to a long desert war in Kuwait, of Bush and then Obama in Afghanistan, who wasted enormous resources and impoverished the American people. Leaving legacy wars for Trump and Biden to handle. After Vietnam another failed chapter of Iran in the US for the American people by incompetent leaders who were taken in by French and British colonial and oil interests in wrong directions.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Kristof of the NYT says the narrative about Hillary Clinton being dishonest is clearly overdone and inaccurate. He says the gaffes about the use of personal email server have unfairly created a distorted narrative. On changing positions on trade and minimum wage- this happens frequently with all the candidates. Some are glib enough for not being noticed, Clinton not a natural politician drawing attention. On Libya, and on Syria, Clinton is blamed for the President's errors and not given credit for pushback in league with Panetta, Gen. Kean and Gen. Jones, that has influenced changes made in 2016, and the president accepting blame for errors. In this instance Clinton has been far from shifty by publicly allying herself with Leon Panetta's position in "Worthy Fights," and Gen. Jones's remarks. Far from having erred on Libya and Syria policy, Hillary Clinton, like Chuck Hagel and others in the administration including Joe Biden, showed exceptional patience in dealing with the president, national security advisor, and McDonough in policy matters- when they were right but the country was weary of what were seen as futile global engagements in remote areas setting too high a bar for any action. Clinton rightly described this as a pendulum swinging too far in the opposite direction after the Bush/Cheney years. On young women and being "progressive" Hillary Clinton is from a older generation that experienced the kind of discrimination that young women fail to grasp, according to a recent analysis of University of Massachusetts polling survey results cited in the Washingon Post. A PolitiFact Pulitzer winning fact checking site shows 50% of the Clinton statments are either true or mostly true, compared to 49% for Bernie Sanders, 9 percent for Trump, 22% for Ted Cruz, and 52% for John Kasich. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Russian president Putin talks to journalists at his year end news conference in Dec. 2015. He has sharp words for Turkey, saying Russia's advanced air defence system S-400 is now in place to prevent any attacks on Russian war planes over Syria. And says the costs of the bombing campaign in Syria comes out of the Defense Ministry's training budget. Putin calls Donald trump "a very bright and talented man." He tells Russians that the Russian economy was coming back after a sharp recession. He points to Russian life expectancy at 71 as one achievement of this period, as the government considers raising the retirement age to conserve resources.

LyrArc Article Gist
President Trump outlines a plan for Afghanistan that increases the U.S. troop presence from about 8500 with an addition of 4000 more troops and advisors, in addition to a counter terrorism force. To war weary public in the U.S. he says: "I share your frustration over a foreign policy that has spent too much time, energy, money- and most importantly, lives- trying to rebuild countries in our own image instead of pursuing our security interests above all other considerations." About his criticism of the war when president Obama was in office as a huge costly waste of resources Trump said: My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like to follow my instincts... I heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk at the Oval Office." After resisting the advice of his own advisers Trump decided to fire Bannon who had supported use of American private security contractors for the war in Afghanistan, and used parts of the media to question national security advisor McMaster's views on this. Gen. Mattis, completed a strategy review that showed the mistake of creating a vacuum would repeat the situation of Iraq where president Obama withdrew forces in 2011, leading to a sequence of negative events- with Russia, Iran and Islamic State moving into the vacuum, making American intervention in the war necessary, increase in terrorist incidents worldwide, and a flood of refugees into Europe. Ironically clearing the path for an outsider's bid for the White House, with Brexit in which refugee fears and uncontrolled immigration played a part, and the news of terrorism and the war in Syria-Iraq creating a sense of insecurity. A key difference in the Trump approach with Obama's approach is that "conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables will guide our actions from now on," in line with Trump's criticism of Obama's approach. The military in the U.S. has long maintained that the best approach would have been to insist on U.S. presence in negotiations with the Iraqi government under the sectarian prime minister Nouri Maliki. Gen. Mattis was head of Central Command under the Obama administration and must have pushed the view of the military to president Obama to no avail. Failure to do so led to the growth of Shiite militias and the alienation of Sunnis in Mosul, leading to the fall of Mosul to Islamic State thus creating the current crisis. Gen. Mattis and Lt. Gen McMaster are intimately aware of the problem and must have convinced Trump that this is what really happened, that a repeat would waste the sacrifices of American soldiers in the twin wars. Trump gave this as his reason when he said in his televised speech to the nation- essentially a criticism of Bush that he expanded the conflict too quickly, and Obama exiting too quickly to create a void. Trump call his policy "principled realism."  The roots of the crisis are in the India-Pakistan conflict. Like the conflict in South East Asia the conflict in South Asia extending from Iran to India and Pakistan, may take a generation to overcome. A rapprochement between India and Pakistan, beginning with trade and economic relations, is not only in America's interest, it also provides the basis for a realistic American withdrawal. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Zapotosky of the Washington Post explains what the Supreme Court's partial approval of the Trump travel ban means for visitors to the U.S. He points out that the Supreme Court's version is limited because it only applies it to persons without any bonafide relationship with a person or entity in the U.S.. In addition the Court urged the administration to complete its vetting procedures review. The travel ban was for 6  countries Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Yemen and Syria. There are conflicts and wars in most of the countries on the list. Also important to bear in mind is that the administration presented its case as one in which this was a temporary measure till vetting procedures are addressed to reduce the "investigative burden."

LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ provides a fact check of Trump statements on crime, debt, and taxes. Trump says he is looking at a new plan for taxes not the $10 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years reducing tax collection by 22%, but something about a third of the size. No details are available on the plan. WSJ disputes Trump's statement that the U.S. is "one of the highest taxed nations in the world." WSJ points out that the U.S. in 2014 for federal, state and local government taxes collected 26% of gross domestic product in taxes, compared to average of 34% for about 30 countries, according to OECD. Debt to GDP ratio is about 75% that is high, but because of low interest rates the budget deficit is less than 3% of GDP, which is close to the long run average. For this reason economists say the government should invest in infrastructure and R&D that supports long run economic growth. On crime the record is mixed with increase in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City, but decreases in Washington D.C. and Baltimore. Police shootings were 67 in 2016 compared to 62 in July 2015, and the high being 280 officers in 1974 when Nixon was President. Crime was an issue in the 1968 Republican National Convention during the Vietnam era protests, police shootings and terror incidents attracted attention in July 2016, yet the situation today is very different from the war protests of the Vietnam era. On terrorism fact checks by the NYT and in Lyrarc shows Clinton at State Department and Panetta at Defense Department taking hawkish stands only to hit a barrier from President Obama for taking action needed in Syria, Iraq and Libya. Panetta's new book calls for robust action where needed. A Clinton administration would take action with allies in the Middle East. Even Hollande and Obama who pulled the U.S. and France out of following up in the French-British Sarkozy-Cameron led intervention in Libya, have changed policy, with Obama calling it his biggest mistake. France under Hollande with the U.S. is now actively engaged in the Middle East, having changed policy. It is highly unlikely that a Trump led policy which alienates most allies in the Middle East- Iran, Iraq and Saudis- is likely to work better than a determined Clinton-Panetta led effort which has support of the local countries on the ground actually currently on both sides because of complexities of Middle Eastern politics.  On trade a new administration will still have to work with China, India, the European Union, and other countries, as global trade supply chains are not likely to evolve overnight. Lessons will have been learned by Clinton about the need to bring back jobs and ensure the strength of U.S. manufacturing. Economic and jobs growth will require prudence in strengthening U.S. manufacturing coupled with global cooperation, which a Trump administration that alienates trading partners without the possibility of making any serious immediate gains in jobs, is highly unlikely to do better.      ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The complex relations of Jordan and Saudis with US and Israel, in June 2025.  There is also the perception and actions of the two American parties Republicans and Democrats that have exacerbated the situation. This see saw of relations under the two parties in the US has only served to exacerbate the relations and draw the US into Middle East conflicts that have their origins in British colonial rule and interests of western oil companies from 1900.  During the Reagan period American involvement under Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to support the Iraqi invasion of Iran in a balancing act. And just a year earlier the Democrat Carter's efforts to look at the Islamic revolution as a response to the CIA's intervention in Iran's internal affairs under Eisenhower's Foreign minister Dulles to secure oil supplies, and efforts to find a way to good relations with Iran. This was followed by the Democrat Obama negotiating with Iran, normalizing relations and Democrat Biden handing over Iranian assets  of hundreds of billions of dollars that were used DJT says to build its military that had suffered badly under the earlier western sanctions under Republican Trump.  It has led to some of the migration from Syria after Russian involvement that flooded Germany with millions of migrants and destabilized European countries democratic processes. These earlier interactions between US and Iran have turned into an Iranian effort to develop its nuclear capabilities bringing the situation faced today, and showing the failure to find solutions of everything tried before and not helping the people of the Arab World and the Gulf regions.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the WSJ says that President Obama's failure in Syria-Iraq policy and his sticking to his idea that his policy is working, including his address after the San Bernardino attack, has given Donald Trump the opening he needed to call for a total ban on Muslims entering the country. This appeals to the American public dissatisfied with current policy, by calling for the opposite extreme. It says Obama's leadership failures on this issue have allowed demagoguery to influence the American public, including citing FDR's action against Japanese-Americans as an example.

LyrArc Article Gist
Landler and Haberman provide a chronological summary of the events leading up to the speech by president Trump on August 21,2017 for continuing the war in Afghanistan with troop increases. Initially Trump followed his instincts and questioned his generals Mattis and McMaster, who have experience with the war in Afghanistan. McMaster prepared the plan. Tillerson, Secretary of State, called for a civilian component for the State Department in the military's plan. The options included using U.S. troops, covert CIA operation, and using mercenaries. The key factor- learning from the experience of the Iraq withdrawal of 2011 andnot  letting things get out of control as happened in Iraq and Syria after 2011 with rise of Islamic State and intervention by Iran and Russia, destabilization of the European Union through accelerated refugee flows. In the end the costs were too significant to let a vacuum develop and the U.S. president gave an honest reflection in his televised speech which was exceptional in its candour and willingness to lay the facts out. Trump's own instincts which he has historically followed would be set aside in this case because of the evidence the generals had given, supported by vice president Pence and key members of the Republican party. The president known for impulsive behaviour could be described as having gone through a period of reflection with the key military officers on what it was all about. In the end the decision to use U.S. troops to control the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan was taken to prevent a vacuum from developing. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
During a trip to Italy for a G-7 foreign ministers meeting, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson makes a symbolic stop at a memorial in Lucca, where 560 men, women and children were massacred by the Nazis in World War II. Tillerson said at the memorial that "we rededicate ourselves to holding to account any and all who commit crimes against the innocents anywhere in the world." Also present at the memorial were Frederica Mogherini, the European Union's chief of foreign policy, and Susanne Wasum-Rainer, German ambassador to Italy. British foreign secretary Boris Johnson said Europe supported the U.S. A meeting on Syria is being added to the G-7 meetings which includes the foreign ministers of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, United Arab Emirates.

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. senior Republican Senators Lindsay Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona, are getting ready to launch a wide ranging probe of Russian interference in the U.S. 2016 presidential election through cyber attacks. The probe is not limited to DNC hacking and the concern is not just that any one candidate was targeted but for the integrity of the American election process. Even though it is not mentioned in this report in the Washington Post by Demirjian, Senators and Congressmen from the Republican Party in charge of key committees of oversight on foreign policy and defense now see it as their responsibility to prevent an enlargement of cyberattacks as Germany and France face elections. Mr. Trump has said in an interview with Time magazine that Russia was not responsible for cyber attacks, that it "could have been China, it could have been some guy in New Jersey." Senator McCain is readying a probe into cyber attacks into U.S. weapons systems, and U.S. military, as the issue widens in its scope and significance for the West and for the U.S. and its allies in Europe and Asia. Senate Select Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (N.C.) will be working closely with McCain, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman, on this particular issue and Senator Mitch McConnell has been apprised of the discussions, according to this report in WP. Senator Graham said- "They'll keep doing more here until they pay a price." Graham will hold a series of investigative hearings in 2017 about Russian meddling and "misadventures throughout the world."  This will include new legislation.  Graham told CNN on Dec. 7, 2016 in strong language- "I am going after Russia in every way you can go after Russia. I think they are one of the most destabilizing influences on the world stage. I think they did interfere with our election, and I want Putin personally to pay the price." During the debates Governor Pence of Indiana, the Vice President elect took a strong position on Russia, and the Vice President's positions on foreign policy and defense are similar to that of the Republican leaders in Congress.  It is hard to remember a time in the post war period when there was such a distinct difference in foreign policy and defense as it relates to Russia between a Republican president and both a Republican Congress and almost all Republican governors. Senator Corker from Tennessee, who heads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is on the short list to be Secretary of State. A related story in the WSJ shows the selection of military leaders for key intelligence, defense and homeland security, and Gen. Petraeus considered for foreign policy, as diverging from historical practice of keeping civilian oversight preeminent in the U.S.. Rep. Peter King, an early supporter of Trump, who is on committees for intelligence and counterterrorism told MSNBC, that he is confident that Trump will not be "taken in by Putin." The U.S. Republican dominated Congress has taken a strong position on Russian interference in Syria and Ukraine. In the House of Representatives Republican Rep. Devin Nunes from California and Rep. Mac Thornberry from Texas are leading efforts on cyber and intelligence as heads of their committees. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
National Security Adviser Bolton says U.S. withdrawal from Syria depends on a number of factors, after president Trump qualified his earlier statement on withdrawal. 

LyrArc Article Gist
In his foreign policy address following the northeast state primaries Donald Trump outlines a policy with less foreign engagement in trouble spots, and greater reliance on partners in Europe and Asia contributing to joint defense. It also includes building up the military and nuclear arsenal. It criticizes the Bush administration for intervention in Iraq that benefitted Iran, and the Obama administration for policies that led to the rise of Islamic State. Because Trump is not for supporting foreign engagements in trouble spots the difference in Trump's policies is not announcing or signalling in advance what U.S. response would be, instead keeping it unpredictable. It is not clear how much this would work given that any president would inherit the situation before him, and also the complexity of the situation would not change, such as the need to have Iranian cooperation and Saudi cooperation to tackle Islamic State. The Bush administration started with a similiar intention to focus on domestic policy, till the 9/11 surprise attack steered it away towards nationbuilding overseas. The pendulum swung in the latter years of the Bush adminstration to the Iraq intervention, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, followed by a swing in the other direction to allowing Libya and Syria disntegrate leading to millions of refugees. Complexity, surprises, and swings of popular opinion, are unlikely to go away, even as caution is exercized and military capabilities enhanced....

LyrArc Article Gist
Fomer Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says America needs to take up a vigorous foreign policy in his book "Worthy Fights." Both Panetta and Hillary Clinton, and Gen. Dempsey of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Petraeus of the CIA, supported U.S. taking a strong stand in Syria by supporting Syrian opposition forces in the summer of 2011 and were overruled by president Obama and his election advisers because of the approaching 2012 election. Here Mark Landler provides more insights into Hillary Clinton's deeply held belief shared with Panetta that the U.S. had to take strong action where necessary to deter foes, to get into the ring to use Panetta's expression. The U.S. support for action in Libya to support Britain and France comes from the efforts of Clinton, and any lack of followup one of president Obama's errors in foreign policy. In April 2016 president Obama said that he considered his failure to followup in Libya to help the new Libyan government his biggest mistake in his presidency. Here Mark Landler looks at Hillary Clinton's entire career as showing a conviction and belief on the need for action where necessary in the U.S. global engagement. Compared to the bluster of the candidates Trump, Cruz and Sanders, with little experience to back this up in their careers in real estate, law or the Senate , Landler says Clinton is the last remaining hawk. Here he describes Hillary Clinton's contact and empathy for the troops from her trip to the American base in Tuzla, Bosnia, in March 1996. In fact many have forgotten that Yugoslavia is what it is today after the Milosevic years and the ethnic wars with Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, members of the EU and Serbia negotiating to enter EU, because of the bombing campaign taken by Bill Clinton through NATO in 1999 to prevent ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, and peacemaking following the Bosnian War using diplomat Holbrooke to negotiate the 1995 Dayton Accords. Here Landler describes the meetings with Gen. Keane who pushed for the troop surge that worked in Iraq under president George W. Bush. Clinton supported Keane's proposal made in April 2015, for a no-fly-zone in Syria that would help opposition forces till a settlement could be negotiated. Keane pointed out to Clinton that there was a flaw in Obama's policies- that negotiation would work only if the no-fly-zone was used to support opposition forces. By the end of 2015 Hillary Clinton publicly adopted this position. During a period when Americans are weary of foreign entanglements but understand the need to provide leadership where needed, Hillary Clinton, provides a balance between the pendulum swinging too sharply in one direction in the Bush years and in another direction in the Obama years, says Landler. A view also articulated by Leon Panetta, who was chief of staff for President Clinton during the Bosnian conflict and the Dayton Accords, where the U.S. showed strength of purpose in war and also in negotiating the peace without major entanglements....

LyrArc Article Gist
This exceptional report from rural areas in France by Roger Cohen shows why the support is growing for the far right and the far left in rural areas and smaller towns outside the large cities which have suffered from high unemployment and neglected as technology and capital moved to other areas. Cohen talks to Nicholas Bay, secretary general of the National Front, who says this election is about patriotism, the nation state vs globalization, as the National Front tries to portray its opposition as being less pro-France, and less pro French culture. The centrist candidate Macron stands in front of a statue of Alexandre Dumas in Picardy, an hour northeast of Paris, and says he is for an "open patriotism" that embraces people of different origins and embraces refugees. Cohen attends a Le Pen rally in Metz, Lorraine, talks to a National Front mayor in Picardy and left party supporters in the town, talks to foreigners in the banlieu of Sevran. Cohen says a National Front victory is possible if enough voters who support the far left party of Melenchon do not vote for centrist candidate Macron, and enough voters of centre right Fillon supporting French culture and nationalism drift to Le Pen. As in the Dutch election with Moroccans derided by the far right the immigrant issue is a factor. Against this background is how events play out in the last weeks of the election. In March and April the events in the U.S. show a Trump administration moving to the centre, adopting a quieter and more constructive tone towards Mexico and immigrants. Relations with Russia have worsened after the U.S. response to the chemical attack in Syria, and the French public may now see this as a common threat to NATO and the European Union. As in the Dutch election a lot depends on the last weeks of the election and how well the centrist parties, the centre right and the centre left get their message across about what is to be gained by building anew on the foundations of the past without risking a lot on an uncertain path of referendums and exit from the European Union.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Fisher and Taub of the NYT look at the populist politics in Europe and the U.S. following the French election first round. Trump won in the U.S. with the deep polarization of politics in the U.S.- leading to the Republican Party to decide to support him to avoid the result of four more years of an administration led by Democrats, and with the support of discontented voters in midwestern states with falling living standards. The situation in Europe is different as the mainstream parties have united in the past to block populist politicians with negative messages on immigration and an open economy. This happened in the Dutch election, by the co-opting of the nationalist message of populist politicians by mainstream parties and mainstream politicians, and is likely to continue in the French and German elections in 2017. Fisher and Taub point to another development that is happening- shifting the debate to ethnonationalism vs. open economies, which has happened with Brexit and the UK Independence Party. They cite the 2015 British elections in which UKIP won 13 percent of the vote, as having influenced prime minister Cameron to call for a referendum on Brexit, in a effort to revive the fortunes of the Conservative Party. In the end this resulted in the 52 percent vote supporting Brexit.  Another way of looking at the populist movement is that with Trump it called attention to trade and the way working class Americans were being marginalized especially in the industrial midwest. With this problem being addressed in a Trump administration and a reviving economy, the mainstream parties have an opportunity to reassert themselves. In Europe the AfD called attention to immigration issues, and the Merkel coalition government of CDU and SPD by making changes such as the deal with Turkey, and returning economic refugees, is able to assert the role of mainstream parties. In Britain the situation could be a result of a brash decision by a Conservative prime minister Cameron, in making a bad miscalculation, that has put Britain on a course that is likely not in its best interest. The Brexit referendum yes vote galvanized opinion by showing an endless stream of refugees in their advertising- a development following the opening of borders by Germany and Austria to address the plight of Syrian war refugees. That situation has passed and is unlikely to happen again as both the SPD and CDU parties in Germany have pointed out that this was a one time situation that they responded to following the exodus from Keleti rail station in Hungary under special circumstances. With this kind of perspective populist politics can be seen as reflecting other voices in a democracy, that are heard and responded to, yet keeping the sense of balance and openness necessary in today's global economy and societies. This is also the perception of Germany's outgoing popular president Gauck in his final address, pointing to the need to listen to other voices in a democracy, and the need for openness in a democracy, as well as democracies always in the process of Becoming and evolving to adapt to new situations in economy, society, and politics.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
In this essay in Der Spiegel, Charles Hawley says that the Trump movement has become a movement of patriotic downtrodden whites, with a whole range of interests-of extreme right talk show hosts, Tea Party politicians, white power supremacists, those left out by globalization in the working class especially in the midwestern states. The danger he says is that this movement of which Trump has become a part, rejects the narrative on which America is based of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers establishing a country based on principles of "the inalienable rights of man," that have evolved through the years to include black people, women, and minorities.  To put this in perspective, president Obama writing for The Economist magazine in October 2016, puts this movement in a different context- that of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Know Nothing Movement of the 1800's, the anti-Asian sentiment in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, periods when anti-immigrant or anti-foreign sentiment gained prominence. Obama's view is that it is not fundamentally economic. In this he is right in that some of the forces on the far right do not stem from globalization. Yet he would be missing a great deal if he did not address the economic problems for the middle and working class that have given such views the support of a broad segment of the population, especially in some midwestern and older industrial states compared to say the economy of California or New York. Obama is aware of the problems in his essay as he points to the problems of workers trying to get a decent wage, of job losses through globalization, and the aggravation of these problems by the financial crisis of 2008 when some of the potential physicists and engineers as he calls them went into the financial sector to create faulty mortgages. Yet he goes back to the free trade and global networks of supply chains as having reduced global poverty, without showing a keen awareness of how it has through a combination of events and decades of policy indifference to manufacturing communities in the U.S.- as documented by experts and shown in Lyrarc, with David Autor and Gordon Hansen in the WSJ, 2016- 08-16. A Gallup Study, WSJ, 2016-05-16, supports Obama's assertion by showing that many of Trump supporters are actually self-employed and not in economic distress. Yet the movement would not have taken its proportions without the merging of different groups particularly largely disadvantaged working class voters, and fortunately Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, have a better sense of this than the president. It is by their efforts that income and wealth disparities can be tackled in a way that restores the social fusion of all parts of society- in Hillary Clinton's emphatic words in the final debate by "growing the middle," growing the middle class. This is the task of the next decade, or possibly two decades. (For Gallup study see WSJ, How Economic Anxieties Explain Trump's Appeal- And Where They Fall Short, Nick Timiraos, 08-16-2016. And for Autor, Hanson, see Tallying the Toll of U.S.-China Trade, Justin Lahart, 08-27-2011)   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Negotiations in Qatar end with the signing of a peace agreement with the Taliban for the first time in two decades. President Trump persisted in the effort following stalled talks in September 2018. Talks went on for 18 months with Afghan American diplomat Khalizad appointed by president Trump to lead negotiations. The agreement was signed in Qatar by Khalizad and Mullah Baradar, in the presence of Secretary of State Pompeo. President Trump stated his view on Afghanistan and places such as Iraq in a New Delhi press conference recently- the U.S. could not act in a (permanent) police role in foreign countries. Efforts were made under previous presidents to end the conflict. President Trump persisted and made this a priority of his administration, following similar policy in Syria and Iraq, where strong deployment of American forces was followed by removal of forces. From beginning to end the deployment was planned in this way, so that resources could be used to improve capabilities for future needs. ...