He is the worst pile of garbage that Trump could have chosen to replace the already dismal McMaster with. Interventionist hawk obsessed with regime change and totally ignorant of history, making him charge all the more recklessly into disaster.
Even the personality cultists aren't bothering to argue that he's ackshually a good choice -- only that the God-Emperor will use his magical powers to prevent Bolton's toxic waste from contaminating anything of consequence, so don't worry.
Why not pick someone good, then? Or someone who's merely crappy? Why the worst possible cartoon choice?
Here, it's not the Deep State twisting Trump's arm -- maybe that was true when they railroaded Flynn out of the WH, to be replaced by a standard-issue general from the Pentagon. But neither General Kelly nor General Mattis were pushing Bolton onto Trump -- if anything, they'll resist his nutjob extremism.
For that reason, it's possible that he'll get railroaded out in short order. The Deep State could leak damaging private conversations he has, or they could just let him make a fool out of himself before a national audience like the Mooch did (not a tall order for a nutjob), and use that as the pretext for Kelly to shove him out the door.
Naturally his replacement won't be a non-interventionist, given the pattern of who they let stay in the NSA position, but it would be an interventionist who isn't as insane as Bolton -- which opens the job to just about anybody.
Several commentators on MSNBC last night wondered whether the appointment of Bolton would trigger the departure of Mattis and/or Kelly ("moderating forces"), but it's really the other way around. Somehow I think the Pentagon generals have more political capital than some psychotic flunkie from the Bush Jr. admin.
That doesn't mean that he can't fuck all kinds of things up in the meantime, and it's not to excuse Trump from royally fucking up such a key appointment. Still, I'd be surprised if he lasts through the summertime feuding season of hot tempers.
Normally we don't root for Deep State purges, on principle, but I can't think of anyone objecting to this one getting shown the door sooner rather than later by the generals who he's bound to make enemies of.
Fake news that Bolton promised "not to start any wars":
ReplyDelete'A source close to John Bolton tells me he made no promise to Trump that he "wouldn't start any wars," contrary to reports. "Not true, wasn't discussed," the source says.'
https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/status/977152398564130816
Lou Dobbs complained to Bolton sometime in the last week or so when he was on the show, saying about wars, "Oh please, don't get us sucked into another one". Bolton did not promise anything, just did that phony laugh in a non-response.
I read a different take on Bolton's political capital.
ReplyDeletehttps://lawfareblog.com/john-bolton-i-knew
It's true that he isn't just a blowhard media clown like some are making him out to be, but I'm contrasting his political capital with Kelly, Mattis, and others like them in and around the Deep State.
ReplyDeleteI think the point of that post was just to say that Bolton is relatively more effective than McMaster at getting the outcomes he wants.