| Get Jonathan Bernstein's newsletter every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. I'll leave the analysis of the foreign policy and military actions between Iran and the U.S. to the experts. For what it's worth, my read of the experts after Iran attacked U.S. military bases in Iraq Tuesday night was fairly optimistic; many sense that there's an opportunity here for President Donald Trump to de-escalate and avoid full-out war. What I do know something about is the process of presidential policy formation and implementation. And that leaves me as pessimistic as ever. The U.S. enters this crisis with a woefully thin and inexperienced team. Trump himself, of course, is no expert. That's not unusual. Of the postwar presidents, only Dwight Eisenhower, George H.W. Bush and perhaps Richard Nixon entered the White House with serious foreign policy and national security credentials. There does seem to be some correlation with success there; Ike, Bush and perhaps Nixon were all quite good at that part of the job. But others have been fine despite coming into the job without a lot of relevant experience. Still, Trump is unusually lacking in relevant experience, and there's little sign that he's getting better as he goes along. That's partly because the executive branch and the White House are, among other things, a giant information machine, able to supply a skilled president with expertise on any subject imaginable — not just a single answer, but multiple sources giving expertise from multiple perspectives, all double-checked by White House staffers who are free from the bureaucratic biases that executive branch departments and agencies breed. Except when the administration is badly understaffed, as this one has been from Day One. Political scientist Elizabeth Saunders tweeted on Tuesday: Things that any administration would want right now: a robust communications operation across the US government, including/especially the White House; a full staffed diplomatic corps and civilian shop in the Pentagon; strong relationships with allies. This administration doesn't have those things. In fact, as the historian and journalist Garrett Graff pointed out: Reminder that as this crisis escalates, we have no Director of National Intelligence, no Dep Dir, no Homeland Security Scretary, no Dep Sec, no head of CBP or ICE, no State Dept Under Sec of Arms Control, no Asst Sec for Europe, and no Navy Sec. Yes, there are acting officials in all of those positions and so many more, but Matt Glassman is correct: "Acting officials are weak. They're the substitute teachers of political leadership." That means they're less likely to stand up to the president and give him information that he needs, and they're also less likely to be good at soliciting information from their agencies. The truth is that the positions that are in place aren't exactly filled with all-stars, either. That's what happens when the presidency — not quite three years old yet — is already on its fourth national security adviser, second secretaries of defense and state, third White House chief of staff, and on and on. Record turnover in the White House and the cabinet is like instability in any organization; people don't really get to know their job properly, or develop good working relationships with others in their own agencies or their counterparts across the government. Now, there's no straight line between these problems and any particular outcome. And the two biggest foreign policy fiascoes since World War II — Vietnam and the Iraq War — were both the products of what were at the time extremely well regarded national security and foreign policy teams. But it almost certainly is true that inexperienced, unqualified and unconfirmed people in key positions increases the chances of things going wrong. 1. Michael C. Horowitz and Elizabeth N. Saunders at the Monkey Cage on why all-out war between Iran and the U.S. is unlikely. 2. Nathaniel Rakich puts Trump's approval ratings at the beginning of the election year in historical perspective. 3. Greg Sargent on the increasingly implausible arguments Republican senators are making against impeachment trial witnesses and other evidence. 4. My Bloomberg Opinion colleague Noah Feldman on John Bolton. Key point: "If Bolton really wanted to tell his story, nothing stops him from holding a press conference and doing so." Exactly. And I'd add that Bolton has an ethical obligation to tell that story, whether it helps or hurts Trump. 5. And Ian Richardson on the expected record turnout for the Iowa caucuses. Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. Also subscribe to Bloomberg All Access and get much, much more. You'll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close. | 
Post a Comment