Wanted: A Coronavirus Manhattan Project

By Paolo von Schirach –

WASHINGTON – Regarding coronavirus, so far public policy in most Western countries focused on monetary and fiscal interventions. They are aimed at mitigating the disastrous economic impact of the government-mandated freezing of most activities and people to people interactions in order to stop contagion. But it should be clear to all that even vast amounts of money thrown at the US and other major economies will not be enough to stabilize a catastrophic situation caused by the “closing down”, for an indefinite period, of most advanced countries.

The limits of economic stimulus

A giant stimulus package, no matter how big, is at best only temporary relief. By now, we begin to understand that trying to save lives by shutting everything down is causing and will cause catastrophic economic devastation.

With virtually “everything” closed, millions of American workers are suddenly out of a job. Furthermore, in the US thousands of shaky companies, kept alive (before this pandemonium began) by low interest loans, will go bankrupt. Without any income, they are unable to meet their payments obligations to banks and bondholders. And when they go under, sadly they will bring down with them managers, workers and their families, shareholders, creditors, suppliers and more. The oil sector, battered by the global slowdown, is now on life support due to crude at $ 25 per barrel or less, the result of the price war between Saudi Arabia and Russia. And this is just a partial list.

Focus on a cure

So, since we need to keep the drastic people movement restrictions in order to prevent contagion and government-delivered economic relief is not enough, what else can be done?

Well, invest more –much more– where the solution to this crisis will be eventually found: in the laboratories and research facilities where scientists are already busy trying to find a cure and a vaccine for the illness caused by this coronavirus. I am sure that much is being done. But, we simply need to do more. May be much more.

Issuing checks to battered US unemployed workers and credit guarantees to companies in trouble provides important but only temporary relief. Investing the same money, or larger sums, in state of the art research aimed at finding a vaccine and/or cure for this coronavirus is a much smarter policy.

We need a Manhattan Project for coronavirus

We need an “All Hands on Deck” approach to this pandemic. We need a medical equivalent of the Manhattan Project, the secret American effort to develop an atomic bomb during WWII. The Manhattan Project probably looked like a fool’s errand at the time. The task was: invent something new and revolutionary, all on the basis of theories lacking any empirical verification. Some who knew about the secret program viewed it as a fantasy, a waste of time and money.

And yet, it worked!

While the Manhattan Project was about destruction, not saving lives, the use of the bomb secretly developed by the Manhattan Projects scientists against Japan resulted in an immediate ending of the war in the Pacific. This way, millions of lives were saved. The alternative would have been a US landing in Japan and then an enormous military undertaking leading to the conquest of the entire country, inch by inch, through a bloody fight against an enemy that would simply not let go.

A medical call to arms

Simply stated, today we need a “Manhattan Project equivalent”, a historic medical call to arms. As we engage in this massive undertaking, we should be comforted by the fact that, unlike the Manhattan Project scientists who were trying to invent something entirely new, we already have extremely valuable resources in the US and other Western countries.

Indeed, nowadays, we have great scientific talent in America, Europe, and Asia. There are thousands of skilled researchers, state of the art laboratories, sophisticated research tools and futuristic technologies unimaginable only a few years ago.

A clear statement from the top

What we urgently need now is a clear message from the President of the United States and all key policy-makers around the world: finding a cure is the number one priority. Key world leaders need to reassure all the capable scientists who are already working on coronavirus research that they will get all the support they will need.

“This is a global emergency. No red tape or delays. You will get –now– whatever you may need in terms of extra funding, additional staff, new equipment, shared platforms and what not, in order to facilitate and expedite your extremely valuable work”.

A well funded and properly coordinated effort, with easy exchange of findings, data and all relevant information among scientists in different countries, would constitute a modern equivalent of the Manhattan Project. Much of the critical research and experimentation work on the coronavirus is well underway. But policy-makers should elevate this critically important effort to the very top of the national and indeed global agenda, while providing all the assistance that may be required.

We shall prevail

I just cannot believe that with all the existing human and technological resources –if properly funded and coordinated– we shall not be able to find a cure that will beat this virus. Of course, we do not know the timeline. It may take a few months, or may be longer. But this is the way to go. We are way too smart to be confined to a public health policy option that prescribes killing all the Western economies in order to save lives.

Paolo von Schirach is the Editor of the Schirach Report He is also the President of the Global Policy Institute, a Washington DC think tank, and Chair of Political Science and International Relations at Bay Atlantic University, also in Washington, DC.




US Oil and Gas Sector Hit Hard By Virus, Price War

By Paolo von Schirach –

WASHINGTON – Sadly, coronavirus is here in America. All the restrictions announced and feared on most economic activities have created huge disruptions and panic. The entire travel, entertainment and restaurant industries are comatose. Airlines bookings literally collapsed. And now, with most economic activities frozen, there is widespread fear that this may be just the beginning of a massive health and economic crisis –with no timeline.

Even worse for the oil sector

Well, if things are looking ugly for the broader US economy, they are simply disastrous for the US fossil fuel industry, oil in particular. The global economic slowdown began in January when China literally closed down half of its economy. The consequent drop in oil demand from China depressed already low oil prices.

Very low oil prices mean that many low margin small and medium sized US oil companies will go bankrupt. And this is because their extracting costs are far higher than in Saudi Arabia or Russia. Many of them could barely stay alive with oil at $ 50 per barrel. But when crude prices went down from $ 60 to $ 30 the picture looked bleak. And now, with the new development of a price war between Russia and Saudi Arabia, expect oil (now at around $ 25) to go down to $ 20 per barrel, or even lower. What started as a crisis for the US energy sector in January, just turned into a nightmare.

The incredible impact of the US energy renaissance

Taking a broad view, there is no question that the US energy boom triggered by the 10 year old domestic “fracking revolution” is one of the brightest spots in the US economy. Thanks to fracking, in the space of almost nothing, America, assumed to have only small and rapidly declining reserves in both oil and gas, came back with a gigantic roar; all thanks to its ability to exploit vast amounts of oil and gas until recently deemed to be unrecoverable, due to the prohibitive cost of extraction.

Well, thanks to the revolutionary fracking technologies, unrecoverable oil and gas became recoverable. In just a few years, a large number of small and medium energy companies (Exxon Mobil and Chevron, among others came later) made the US into the world’s largest natural gas producer, and now the biggest oil producer. It is hard to overestimate the positive impact of all this.

New jobs and energy security

Just think about it. Nowadays, we have billions of dollars invested at home, in this dynamic domestic energy sector, instead of being sent out to buy OPEC oil. We also accomplished the creation of “Hemispheric Energy Security”. No, America is not totally energy independent.

However, if you combine this staggering increase in domestic energy production with Canadian and Mexican imports, you realize that nowadays most of America’s energy comes from the Western Hemisphere. This is a huge net plus in terms of improved national security.

Problem: high cost

The big fly in the ointment in all this was and is that shale oil is a high cost, low margin business. And this is a problem. Indeed, mostly on account of a mature, abundantly supplied global energy market, crude prices are now historically low, while many if not most US players in this shale oil sector are over leveraged, and do not make much money.

In fact, some do not make any money at all. Given relatively high operating costs, low oil prices and large debt burdens, the sheer survival of many American small and medium energy companies was highly questionable before the crisis of 2020 began. For these reasons, the energy sector was not very attractive to average investors. Indeed, even in the context of a very robust stock market in 2019, oil stocks were the worst performers.

Energy companies must be profitable

Yes, it is great to celebrate this astonishing American energy renaissance. However, this is a capitalistic economy. Eventually, you have to be profitable to stay in business. Of course, cost cutting and consolidation were happening in this rather fragmented industry. And the sector proved to be much, much more resilient than what many critics had argued. Initially thought to be viable only with oil at $ 60 per barrel or above, many companies can still make money with oil at $ 50 or $ 40. However, some cannot.

The impact of the crisis in China

And then January 2020 came along, with the explosion of the coronavirus epidemic in China. This led to the freezing of the Chinese economy, and the consequent collapse of (already low) oil prices due to drastic demand cuts by its biggest customer. This was bad news for all oil producers and exporters; but really horrible news for the shale oil sector in the US that depends on relatively high crude prices (at least $ 50 per barrel on average) to stay profitable.

Saudi Russia price war

Well, if this were not bad enough, on the heels of the China problem came an unexpected price war between the two main world exporters: Saudi Arabia and Russia. They would not continue their cooperation based on agreed upon production cuts aimed at supporting global oil prices. In fact, with no deal, they decided to turn all the taps on, this way flooding an already over supplied oil market, with a consequent additional price drop.

Well, if oil at $ 40 per barrel was very bad news for many US shale oil producers, you can imagine the impact of oil at $ 25 per barrel, or lower. This is an unmitigated disaster, in the context of a suddenly deteriorated US and world economy.

If this oil price slump lasts much longer, you can expect many bankruptcies, and tens of thousands of American oil workers out of a job, with negative cascading effects on the hundreds of suppliers and vendors that depend heavily on vibrant energy companies buying pipes, drilling equipment, valves, pumps, and what not. Expect collapsed demand for all these oil services, parts and components companies. And, as a sad consequence of all this, expect additional misery and negative ripple effects on so many local economies that had done very well on account of the money brought in by the oil business.

Price war cannot last much longer

The only hope in all this is that this price war cannot last very long because it is unsustainable for both Saudi Arabia and Russia. Indeed, while both countries’ oil industries can still make money even at these extraordinarily low oil prices, both governments cannot afford this.

Russia based its spending plans on oil at $ 50 per barrel. Saudi Arabia needs oil at $ 80 to finance its rather ambitious economic diversification agenda. Here is the thing. Revenue generated by foreign oil sales is almost all these to countries got. Russia may be somewhat better placed, but not in a great position.

US shale sector will take time to recover

Yes, for a while at least, both countries can dip into their dollar reserves to finance the cash shortfall caused by drastically reduced oil revenues. But not indefinitely. In all this, the US shale oil sector is getting hit pretty hard, because its operating costs are much higher than current oil prices.

No way that companies that need oil to be at $ 40 per barrel just to stay alive can keep going much longer with crude hovering around $ 20. In the end, the US shale sector will survive. But only after undergoing painful bankruptcies and consolidations from which only the fittest will survive.

Paolo von Schirach is the Editor of the Schirach Report He is also the President of the Global Policy Institute, a Washington DC think tank, and Chair of Political Scienc




The Economic Damage Of Coronavirus

By Paolo von Schirach

WASHINGTON – The spreading coronavirus epidemic has already created an enormous challenge for the global economy. This epidemic is caused by an unknown new virus for which human beings have no immunity. For this reason, while this illness is very similar to a seasonal flu, its mortality rate is significantly higher. Hence the global scare.

Widespread restrictions

To date, there are no medical remedies for this new illness. Lacking other remedies, the countermeasures, beginning in China, (where it all started), have focused on lockdowns, quarantines and interruption of travel to and from the regions and countries affected. The goal is to slow down the spreading of the disease. Still, while this may be a sensible prevention policy from a public health standpoint, the economic impact has been devastating. Large parts of the Chinese economy have essentially been frozen by all these restrictions.

Frozen economy in China

Think about it. Lockdown affecting tens of millions of workers means that factories and offices are closed, workers do not work, goods are not produced, orders are not filled. Restaurants and hotels are empty, airlines cannot fly.

This prolonged work stoppage will amount to catastrophic economic losses for China, whose economy –let us keep in mind– was already rather anemic prior to this crisis, in some measure due to the negative impact of the tariffs war with the US.

Economic contagion

And this is not just affecting China. The reality of globalization means that we already have widespread economic contagion, even in countries only mildly affected (so far) by this new disease. Indeed, while relatively unscathed by the epidemic, the US is already suffering economically.

And this why. All US multinationals, and other smaller companies, depend on complex (and, it turns out, very vulnerable) supply chains centered in Asia. As the Chinese economy freezes, many US companies do not get their products delivered, and/or do not get critical parts and components for products assembled in the US. This is costly, and it negatively affected production schedules.

Sectors already affected

Beyond that, certain sectors of the US economy, such as leisure and business travel, hotels and airlines are already affected in a major way due to all the travel restrictions imposed by the authorities.

Furthermore, we can expect that the US oil industry will suffer devastating losses. With industrial production down in Asia, global oil demand collapsed and so did benchmark oil prices. The large and expanding (thanks to shale drilling) US oil industry supports dozens of medium sized companies and tens of thousands of high paying jobs. Many of these jobs are now in jeopardy. If the oil prices slump continues, expect major losses and bankruptcies in the US oil patch.

Additional contagion

The fact that new points of contagion have exploded in South Korea, Japan, Italy and Iran worries markets even more. These developments lead all experts to conclude that the coronavirus epidemic is now out of China, and it cannot be contained. Therefore, we should expect more countermeasures in the shape of travel restrictions and lockdown, and consequently additional harm to the global economy. Hence the financial markets panic and the deep losses experienced by Wall Street (the worst since 2008) in the last few days.

The road ahead

If we could have the reassurance that these extreme “Coronavirus Containment Measures”, while severe, were only temporary, then the world economy could adjust, absorb this hit, and get ready to restart soonest.

But the problem is that we do not know how long this epidemic will last. And this allows for the worst scenarios to proliferate. After the 2008 financial crisis exploded, the panic was caused by lack of knowledge regarding the extent of the financial shortfalls. How big were the losses for the banking sector? How many mortgage companies would go under? Who would be capable of surviving? The market panic was largely due to lack of reliable data.

However, the massive liquidity injection by the US Fed into the US economy, combined with massive rate cuts, helped to reassure the markets; and they gradually re-established confidence in the system. After those beneficial interventions, climbing back to normality was certainly painful; but everybody agreed that it was doable.

How long will this last?

In this coronavirus case, there is no clear end game. The health experts have no reassuring answers for this medical emergency. Lacking a cure, keeping infected individuals and areas isolated and blocking altogether travel and events where large numbers of people congregate seems a sensible way to slow down or contain the spread of this virus. The problem is that these prevention measures cause enormous economic losses, as the recent developments in China, South Korea, Japan and Italy clearly indicate.

More contagion, more restrictions

Should the epidemic spread from Italy to the rest of Europe in major way, and from Europe to other parts of the world, assuming similar restrictive policies adopted by additional countries, the economic damage caused by widespread freezing of production and world commerce would be incalculable.

For instance, in Iran, a severely under resourced country, the epidemic most probably cannot be contained. Will the virus travel from there to Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa? Scary scenario; but not impossible.

Without
some good news, such as new data showing a global contagion slowdown and/or the
announcement of a cure or vaccine that could be quickly administered, it is
difficult to see how markets can stabilize and go back to normal.

Last but not least, should the epidemic spread to the US in a major way, (it is already here), all bets are off. If America stops, the world stops.

Paolo von Schirach is the Editor of the Schirach Report He is also the President of the Global Policy Institute, a Washington DC think tank, and Chair of Political Science and International Relations at Bay Atlantic University, also in Washington, DC.




U.S. Surrender In Afghanistan

By Paolo von Schirach – 

WASHINGTON – The historic news is buried in short articles inside major newspapers. If you did not pay attention, you probably would not even notice that the American war in Afghanistan –the longest American war– is finally coming to an (unhappy) end. America is negotiating its departure from Afghanistan. A draft deal sketching a timeline for US troops withdrawal and subsequent Afghan Government-Taliban negotiations has been hammered by US Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and the Taliban.

Good news? Not really. This is a U.S. withdrawal following defeat, not victory. Let’s be clear. America has not come to this point after negotiations from a position of strength with a badly bruised, demoralized Taliban. America negotiated an exit from a war that it could not win against a relentless enemy. Make no mistake, whatever the wording of the final agreement, in essence this is a U.S. surrender.

Inglorious
end

Indeed, it
is clear to all observers that America is negotiating with the Taliban from a
position of extreme weakness. The other side, the Taliban, is winning on the
ground, and we simply cannot take this nightmare of daily attacks followed by
feeble and ineffective Afghan responses anymore.

Sadly, this is the inglorious end to a terribly ill-advised October 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, followed by an ill-conceived military occupation, and an even worse economic development strategy concocted under the assumption (bordering on lunacy) that America and its NATO Allies had the resources, the will and the skills to transform an extremely backward, war-torn Afghanistan into an at least passable modern, working democracy.  

A
bad idea

Sadly,
this negotiation with the Taliban is the end of the American poorly planned and
poorly executed adventure in Afghanistan. The occupation of Afghanistan was and
is a bad idea doggedly pursued for almost 20 years by national leaders who
should have known better; or who at least, after a few years of failures, could
have paused and thought the whole thing over again.

Foreign
policy mistakes unfortunately happen. But Afghanistan is much worse. This is
about hatching a completely unrealistic plan and then clinging to its mistaken
assumptions and failed policies, year after year, in the vain hope that
–maybe—someday things will improve, without any evidence whatsoever that the
situation on the ground was getting any better.

It
all started after 9/11

Let’s go
back to the beginning of this sad story, and that is 9/11. After it became
clear that this major terror attack against the US homeland had been directed
by Osama bin Laden, the founder of al Qaeda who had found sanctuary in
Afghanistan, the Bush administration decided “to
go get him”.
However, Washington almost immediately decided
also on a much more ambitious agenda. Indeed, the Bush administration decided
that it had to punish not just the al Qaeda leadership, but also its Afghan
willing hosts, that is the Taliban government.

Therefore
the more narrowly focused “punitive
expedition against Osama and al Qaeda”
almost immediately morphed
into “regime change”
for Afghanistan. This rather grandiose objective was in fact an act of
vainglorious superficiality. In so doing, Washington, while trying to get Osama
who was hiding somewhere in the mountains of Afghanistan, (without any success,
by the way!), at the same time declared to the world that it needed to “fix” Afghanistan once
and for all, so that in the future this sorry country would become a
responsible, modern democracy, and no longer the friendly home of terrorists.

Insane
policy

In
principle, this may sound sensible: “Clean
up the place and engage in a bottom up make-over”
so that in the
future Afghanistan will not be used as a base for Islamic terrorists. In practice, anybody
with a brain at the time would have been able to see that this –“fixing Afghanistan”–
was a next to impossible task, at least within any reasonable time frame.

Anybody
with an even scant knowledge of decades of failure in trying to promote
sustainable development in Africa and other underdeveloped regions of the world
through large amounts of outside assistance could have pointed out that this
was mission impossible.

Indeed, if promoting development in Africa is extremely challenging even under “normal” circumstances, it should have been clear to all top decision-makers in Washington that engaging in a development effort in an extremely poor, and completely ruined post-conflict Afghanistan would take extraordinary resources, and many, many decades.

A
dauntingly tall agenda, by the way, even assuming peace and a cooperative
society willing to buy into this rapid modernization strategy hatched and
dished out by outside experts.

Impossible
goals

Again, everybody knew or should have known that at the end of 2001 Afghanistan was an incredibly backward, tribal country that lacked almost all the underpinnings necessary to even start moving on a development agenda. And the basic underpinnings would include: some meaningful productive activities, (no, poppy cultivation and heroin should not be on this list), at least some basic infrastructure, a modicum of electricity generation capacity and transmission lines, at least some reasonably modern health care facilities, some functioning schools, a somewhat educated middle class, and a reasonably competent government and public administration.

Sadly, at the end of 2001 Afghanistan had almost none of these prerequisites. On top of that, the country was exhausted. it had suffered for years under a communist dictatorship, then it had to endure the Soviet invasion which was followed by a bloody war against the Soviets, and then civil strife, followed by the truly medieval Taliban regime.

A
record of failure

Anyway, in
the end the whole US-led Afghanistan enterprise that began at the end of 2001
failed –miserably. This is well documented. A key feature of this systemic
failure is that, to this day, the US government has no idea of what happened to
billions of dollars targeted for development in Afghanistan. The money simply
vanished.

The biggest failure was and is in the strong resurgence of the Taliban and the utter inability of the US-trained and equipped Afghan military and police to even hold their ground –let alone go after the Taliban insurgents and defeat them.

Right now, the Kabul government is unable to guarantee even a modicum of security almost anywhere in the country. Up to the signing of the recent preliminary agreement and semi-ceasefire that should lead to the finalization of the final peace agreement, The Taliban could hit almost any city, including well defended targets in Kabul itself.

On top of that, in the last few years, other extremists and terror groups have found fertile ground in Afghanistan. On a daily basis, there are attacks, bombs, suicide missions, and what not. And this is happening after 19 years of American and NATO military assistance to the Afghan Government, combined with gigantic development packages aimed at building a modern government, and eventually new prosperity.

The
negotiations with the Taliban

I guess this is why the Trump administration FINALLY decided to cut America’s losses and get the residual US troops home. The fig leaf here are the almost concluded bilateral “peace negotiations” with the Taliban. Through this charade hosted by Qatar, Washington would like to convey to the world that this is no “cut and run”. On the contrary, Washington will implement an orderly and careful incremental drawdown of US forces –but only if and when the Taliban will meet certain non-negotiable conditions.

The public message is: “This is no unilateral withdrawal. We are negotiating an honorable and sound peace agreement. We Americans shall make sure that the interests of the Afghan people are protected. We shall also make sure that the new (and still fragile) Afghan democratic institutions will be safeguarded and will continue to define the country long after the last American soldier has departed”.

Of course,
this is pure fiction.

Whatever they may say now, the Taliban leaders deep down do not believe in either democracy or power sharing. The notion of a well-functioning future coalition government featuring the current (extremely fractured, by the way) Afghan leadership and the Taliban –all working together for the benefit of the Afghan people– is ridiculous. Which is to say that these US-Taliban negotiations are only about saving face. Whatever you may want to call this process, in essence this is an American surrender. America failed –in a spectacular way– and now we are finally leaving an impossible situation that cost US taxpayers hundreds of billions, not to mention the dead and the wounded U.S. troops. No more good money after bad.

What
do we make of all this?

So, what do we make of this absurd tragedy?

Sadly, the only plausible conclusion is that in the highly charged, emotional days after 9/11 our national leaders literally lost their minds. There is no doubt that the terror attack America suffered on September 11, 2001 was unprecedented in scale and loss of American lives.

But 9/11
was not the end of the world. The notion that America, in order to prevent
future attacks and be safe, had to “redo
Afghanistan”
was megalomaniac, vainglorious and stupid. Going after
the bad guys, the masterminds of 9/11, was absolutely justified. But the notion
that creating a new country in Afghanistan was necessary in order to guarantee
future US security was fatally flawed.

And,
by the way, let’s not forget: even the more focused mission of capturing or
killing the al Qaeda senior leadership responsible for 9/11 FAILED, TOTALLY.
The US forces were there, on the ground in Afghanistan. Osama and his cohorts
were on the run. And still we failed to capture Osama, for more than a decade.

That said,
the Afghanistan operation was the beginning of the “War on Terror”, an ill-defined, grandiose
strategy that created what was ultimately an unreachable goal: identifying,
pursuing and neutralizing all terror organizations around the world.

“War
on Terror” does not mean anything

Terrorism is not“a place” you can attack and conquer or a clearly identifiable enemy located in one place. Terrorism is a modus operandi that can be and is adopted by several small groups, or even isolated individuals all over the world. Terrorism is about dramatic violent actions that will gain a great deal of publicity. It can spring almost anywhere, without any notice.

If you call this fight “a war”, how do you “win” this war? How can you ensure that all the bad guys, and the would-be bad guys, have been apprehended or killed? This is impossible. You can and should do your best to monitor and infiltrate terror cells. You should prevent possible acts of terror, and go after the bad guys when something bad tragically happened.

But this is mostly about doing your best to manage an elusive threat using intelligence services and special forces. You cannot “win” this conflict once and for all; just as police forces, even the best ones, cannot inflict a final defeat on all criminals and all criminal activities.

There are more than 7 and half billion people on this planet. Even if the smallest fraction of this large world population engages in terror plots, you still have a terror problem. And yet this open-ended, grandiose goal –Fighting and Winning the War on Terror— became the fundamental pillar of U.S. foreign policy under President George W. Bush. America was committed to fight this Global War on Terror to the very end, and we would not rest until the last terrorist had been killed or apprehended. This was and is an impractical, in fact fatuous goal.

No doubt,
terrorism is serious business, to be treated seriously. And this is why we have
sophisticated intelligence services and trained Special Forces. But terrorism
is not an existential threat that justifies making it into our number one
national security priority, engaging in a global war in which the entire world,
by the way, had to actively participate in order to show that they are with us.

Wrong
policies continued under Obama

But here is the thing. The stupidity of this Bush administration policy did not disappear when President Bush left office. What is bizarre and unexplainable is that, even though George W. Bush left the stage in January 2009, and no one talked about his War on Terror anymore, the failed Afghanistan project that was an integral part of the initial War on Terror strategy kept going, and going.

Indeed, President Obama declared that the war in Afghanistan was the “good war” of necessity that had to be fought, as opposed to the “bad war” in Iraq that was discretionary and ill-advised. And so Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, kept going and going in Afghanistan even though, based on years of failures, he and his national security team should have known better.

After all, they were not bound to justify and continue on the basis of a flawed commitment created by the previous Republican administration. And it took Trump, the president elected with the open pledge to end all the stupid “endless wars” started and continued by his predecessors, more than two years to finally come to grips with the need to end this madness.

Taking
stock

So, here is the balance sheet. It took more than 18 years to finally recognize a colossal foreign and security policy mistake. How could America be so wrong for such a long time without any serious debate on this record of failure followed by more failure? How could this happen?

I am not entirely sure. Still, as a minimum we need to recognize that there is a nefarious inertia, combined with mental laziness, enveloping the upper layers of the analytical and decision-making centers of this nation.

Alright, we can allow for mistakes. But bad policy judgment and errors could explain only the beginning of the problem. However, after a few years, how can we explain and justify that Washington, despite a solid record of failure in Afghanistan, kept going and going, year after year, without anybody in a position of power and responsibility pausing and asking the most elementary question: “Is this really working as intended?”

American policy-makers lost the ability to reflect

In Afghanistan, America started something big and expensive with all the wrong assumptions regarding the size and scope of the undertaking and without a realistic time frame to achieve the stated goals.

Here is my
conclusion. As a nation, notwithstanding hundreds of billions of dollars spent
every year on intelligence gathering, scenario planning, and war games, not to
mention the largest defense budget in the world, we seem to have lost even a
modicum of self-reflection ability.

An outside observer looking into this mess might find this record of systemic failure by the leaders of the most advanced country on Earth, and the attendant epic waste of resources stemming from totally misguided policies, quite funny.

But it is in fact tragic. In the end, finally getting out of an untenable situation in Afghanistan is a good thing. But I am not sure that America’s leaders learnt any enduring lessons.

 




The EU Will Not Create Its Own Armed Forces

By Paolo von Schirach

WASHINGTON – French president Emmanuel Macron said it right. In his speech at the Munich Security Conference he argued that “We need a European strategy that renews us and turn us into a strategic political power.” Indeed, there is no reason why Europe should not be a world power.

The EU has a lot of assets

The European Union has a significant size, a large population, (512 million), and the second largest economy in the world, ($ 18 trillion), just a bit behind he US, if we add the GDP of all its member states.

Long gone are the dark days of the beginning of the Cold War, when a destroyed Europe had to rely on American protection, delivered via NATO, to guarantee its own security, vis-a-vis a menacing Russia.

The dark days of the Cold war are over

In 1949, the year NATO was created, Germany was a vanquished and semi-destroyed country. It had lost its eastern provinces, (to Poland), and the Soviet Zone of Occupation had morphed into a separate, and hostile, Communist State under Soviet control. The rest of Europe was also heavily damaged by WWII and fairly poor. Europe needed the security protection that could be provided only by a strong and confident America.

70 years later, we have a completely different scenario. First of all, the Soviet threat vanished with the implosion of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991. Germany was reunified, and is now the fourth largest world economic power. The rest of Europe has also grown significantly.

There is no European core

So, what’s preventing an economically strong EU from playing a much bigger role on the world stage? Very simple. the European Union has no political core, no clear identity. It is not a federal state with an established identity and a clearly defined national interest for whose protection armed forces have been created and sophisticated diplomacy is used on a daily basis.

The European Union is an unprecedented experiment linking sovereign states that have agreed to surrender some sovereignty to supranational, EU institutions that operate according to rules defined by a complex web of intra-European treaties.

Hard to say what the “European Union” really is. It is certainly much more than a Free Trade Area. But, for sure, it is not a state. Nor is there any agreed upon road map, plan, agreement or anything else that binds members states to create a European Federation at any time.

Macron’s suggestions will go nowhere

This should be enough for anybody to conclude that Macron’s exhortations, while justified in principle, will go absolutely nowhere. Lacking the glue of shared identity and shared destiny, complex associations agreements among sovereign states are just not enough to create a new, major power that will play a significant role on the world scene.

Size, population, GDP and overall development are important prerequisites, of course. And Europe arguably has all of them. But Europe is not a state. There is no democratically elected, centralized, federal European government representing the European people, with the clear and undisputed mandate to define the national interest, while allocating the necessary economic resources to create the armed forces, (along with the command structure), necessary to protect it.

Talk but no actions

Therefore, expect some talk about Macron’s idea of a more assertive Europe. But not much more than that. Sure enough, Macron’s concerns will be addressed in some measure by creating ad hoc committees gathering EU policy-makers, elder statesmen, and military leaders. These committees can and will meet, discuss, propose, and what not. But there is no way that this Europe, as currently configured, will be able to create a sizable EU defense budget, and then field modern, credible armed forces operating under a European Command.

While diminished, NATO is still there

So, is Europe defenseless? Not really.

Europe can still rely, or at least most Europeans hope this, on good old, US-led, NATO. Yes, after all these years, NATO is still there. While most American troops are gone, there are still thousands of U.S. soldiers in Europe, and there is still an impressive infrastructure of old and tested joint NATO commands, regular NATO meetings, NATO military exercises, and an established practice of discussing most Western security issues within the framework of the Alliance.

Of course, the major problem is that NATO, today just like 70 years ago, is mostly a US unilateral security guarantee to Europe. Everybody knows this. Today many question the continuing need for this old Alliance, decades after the end of the Soviet threat that justified its creation. But the truth is that inertia dominates.

NATO is there, so let us keep it, even though there are good reasons to questions its purpose and viability, considering the much reduced defense budgets (and therefore military capabilities) of all its European members.

European defense without NATO

What Macron proposes for the EU is something like a Europe-only NATO, without the US and Canada. Again, nothing wrong with that. A relatively prosperous Europe could and should finally be autonomous and self-sufficient on fundamental security issues.

There is no Europe

Except that there is no Europe, if by “Europe” we mean a strong state, with a legitimate European Government in charge of fundamental issues, including defense and foreign affairs.

Indeed, it is hard to believe that this European Union, with its unelected leaders running armies of bureaucrats, can have the authority and the credibility to raise expensive armies and organize defense strategies under a unified EU Command.

Paolo von Schirach is the Editor of the Schirach Report He is also the President of the Global Policy Institute, a Washington DC think tank, and Chair of Political Science and International Relations at Bay Atlantic University, also in Washington, DC.




America Unprepared To Deal With A Pandemic

By Paolo von Schirach

WASHINGTON – For very understandable reasons, millions of Americans are now focused on the progress of the Wuhan coronavirus epidemic and on any assessments/prognostications about its virulence and ability to expand in a significant way beyond China.

Low threat

As of now, nothing much has happened in the US. The only known cases of coronavirus are related to very few individuals who contracted the disease while in Wuhan. In one case, the husband of a woman who got infected while visiting China got it from her after she returned. Not surprising.

So, no reason for panic, it seems.

Bad practices when it comes to basic hospital hygiene

True. for the moment at least, we are not facing any coronavirus emergency, here in the US. However, as some noted experts in epidemics have indicated, this potential crisis should be a wake up call to face the reality of the grossly inadequate prevention practices that prevail in most American hospitals.

When it comes to basic hygiene, most US health facilities do not follow elementary precautions, and so hospitals have become the breeding ground for viruses and deadly bacteria. It may sound crazy, but, according to the data, about 70,000 Americans die every year because of diseases contracted while in the hospital. And this –let me stress– occurs under “normal” circumstances, without the pressure and confusion caused by a sudden pandemic.

Tragic but preventable

Think of that. This is tragic. But almost completely preventable, assuming the adoption of and compliance with basic prevention and safety protocols. I have no idea as to why health authorities, hospital managers and other senior people in charge of medical care in America are not doing much to reverse this awful state of affairs.

This is not rocket science. This is about making sure that, while in the hospital, patients are properly isolated, so that they will not communicate potentially deadly pathogens to medical personnel and other patients. This is rather elementary. And yet, somehow, it is not done –at least not done on the scale that would be necessary.

For sure, adopting known best practices can be onerous, expensive, and time consuming. You have to create special “airtight” facilities within hospitals. You have to make sure that all relevant health care workers wear protective suites, masks, goggles, and what not, all the time. Yes, this is onerous; but it is the only way we know to prevent the spreading of pathogens within hospitals. It is a sad irony that patients may be and are indeed killed by diseases contracted in the place they went to in the hope and expectation to be healed.

We focus on Wuhan coronavirus, but we ignore basic protocols

So, here is the thing. For the time being, here in America no real threat from the mysterious Wuhan coronavirus, even though the spread of this novel disease is continuing, and therefore we should stay on the alert. This is relatively good news.

However, the ongoing and well documented tragedy of tens of thousands of Americans dying unnecessarily, year after year, because of carelessness and lack of proper hygiene in hospitals across America is a scandal that is essentially ignored.

We are unprepared for a major outbreak

Quite clearly, assuming that nothing or just a little will be done to improve the basic prevention/hygiene conditions within our hospitals, should we face a real health emergency like a virulent pandemic, we would be in real trouble.

Lacking adequate isolation facilities, overwhelmed “dirty” hospitals would become places of contagion, rather than cure. I really hope that all those in charge note all this and start taking action.

Given the state of most of our hospitals, we are not prepared to face a pandemic. Our national disease control policy cannot be just the hope of being lucky.

Paolo von Schirach is the Editor of the Schirach Report He is also the President of the Global Policy Institute, a Washington DC think tank, and Chair of Political Science and International Relations at Bay Atlantic University, also in Washington, DC.




Raising The Temperature In The Middle East

By Paolo von Schirach –

WASHINGTON – After the unexpected airstrike that killed IRGC General Qassem Soleimani, right outside the Baghdad airport, analysts began speculating what Trump’s end game may be. In other words, is this just an ill-conceived, spur of the moment decision? Or is this targeted assassination of the master mind of all the Iran-led irregular forces operating with impunity in the Middle East part of a carefully orchestrated US “plan”?

Recalculations about America’s will are in order

I have no idea. However, I would say that this brazen attack that eliminated the most significant and most revered leader of Iran’s international mischief will probably cause some rethinking on the part of those who have come to believe that America is a hesitant giant, essentially impotent when targeted by non state actors.

Well, not so impotent, it turns out. I would speculate that Soleimani was killed in some measure because he got used to traveling from Iranian fiefdom to Iranian fiefdom, (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen), without too much concern about his own safety. In other words, being at the head of a victorious and unchallenged unconventional military force, made Soleimani arrogant. It made him believe that he was invincible, that he could safely move around almost anywhere in the region.

Here is the thing. Going forward, the accepted narrative of a rather passive and impotent America, incapable of reacting to stealthy attacks that do not leave clear footprints, no longer applies. Not just Iran, but all America’s enemies should take all this into account.

Making things worse in the Middle East?

Sure enough, this sensational killing caused all sorts of speculations regarding possible reverberations on the volatile Middle East, already torn by conflicts and insurrections. Trump has been accused by Joe Biden, would be Democratic nominee for the presidency, of having thrown a stick of dynamite into a powder keg, or something like that.

Sure, this American action raises the temperature in the region. But the most feared consequence of a major Middle East crisis, sky rocketing oil prices, will not happen. As Holman W. Jenkins noted in a recent piece in The Wall Street Journal, the unrelated American fracking revolution, by substantially increasing US oil production, completely transformed global oil markets.

There is plenty of oil

In other words, today the world should not be overly concerned with any disruption of the flow of oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz. The difference between 10 0r 15 years ago and today is that America –until not long ago a major oil importer– is now the largest oil producer in the world. Yes, the US produces more oil than Saudi Arabia or Russia. While America still imports oil, it buys most of it from Canada, not from the Persian Gulf.

This fantastic increase of America’s oil production has had and will have significant geopolitical consequences. A very big one is to have down graded the strategic importance of the Middle East as an oil producing region, and therefore the possible negative impact of Iranian actions targeting Middle Eastern oil facilities on the world economy.

Nothing happened after Iran attack Saudi oil facilities

If you recall, a few months ago, the Iranians launched a surprise attack against major Saudi oil installations, knocking down with one shot about 50% of Saudi Arabia’s oil output. Well, what happened? Not much. Yes, oil prices went up, for a few days. But then, when the analysts were reassured that there was plenty of extra supply in global energy markets, oil prices went down again.

I am not suggesting that the Middle East has become irrelevant, far from it. What I am suggesting is that Iranian threats and possible attacks against oil are not as dangerous as they used to be in an era of tight supplies and enormous needs for imported oil on the part of the United States.

Iran is not the winning champion

Yes, after the stinging loss of Soleimani, its revered military leader, we should be prepared for something really nasty coming out of Iran. But let us not forget that Iran is not Stalin’s Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany at the height of its power.

Iran is an impoverished police state, stricken by US economic sanctions. It is a country in which an increasingly recalcitarting population, notwithstanding the obvious threats of imprisonment, torture or death, still engage in spontaneous protests against the high cost of food and other basic necessities. While we should not underestimate its resourcefulness, today’s Iran is not exactly an unbeatable champion.

Paolo von Schirach is the Editor of the Schirach Report He is also the President of the Global Policy Institute, a Washington DC think tank and Chair of Political Science and International Relations at Bay Atlantic University, also in Washington, DC




War With Iran?

By Paolo von Schirach

WASHINGTON – The killing of General Qassem Soleimani, the legendary head of the Iranian al Quds force, is a game changer in America’s creeping hostilities with Iran. I wrote recently http://schirachreport.com/2020/01/02/iraq-is-lost/ that unless the US wants to engage in a conflict over Iraq, this poor, war-torn country is lost to us, on account of the solid Iranian grip on it. Large pro-Iranian Iraqi Shia military forces and pro-Iran Iraqi political parties make it almost impossible –short of an all out war– to dislodge the Iranians from what is now their vassal state.

Iraq is still lost

The killing of Soleimani changes nothing in this regard. If anything, it will lead to a formal request on the part of the Iraqis that all US forces currently in Iraq, supposedly to guard against any possible ISIL come back, leave immediately. I am not quite sure how this major political crisis with Iraq can be handled by Washington so that it will have a smooth end. Highly unlikely. Forget about working with any Iraqi government on anything at all.

Escalation with Iran

Regarding Iran, with this sensational assassination of the leader of all Iranian terror forces, now Washington has escalated the conflict with Tehran. The loss of Soleimani, a cult figure in Iran, stings badly. Iran will have to do “something” in response to this humiliation, possibly something very big. And this will inevitably cause a US retaliation.

Prior to the killing of Soleimani, notwithstanding countless Iranian provocations, President Trump repeatedly indicated that the US does not want “war” with Iran. But as of now, with this assassination of a key Revolutionary Guard leader, arguably the US is at war with Iran. An undeclared war; but war nonetheless.

Is Washington ready?

And this presents significant challenges for Washington. America is not very good at fighting unconventional conflicts in which our wily adversaries engage in asymmetric warfare. We are rarely proactive, hitting our opponents before they hit us, this way putting them on the defensive.

We are usually waiting for the next hit, whenever our adversary chooses to strike, and then do our best to retaliate. Which means that the other side, the bad guys, always retain the initiative.

The killing of Soleimani represents a major change. For sure the Iranians did not expect this, as they are used to moving around in contested territories with impunity. Does this mean that the US has now taken the initiative? Is America planning more strikes? Not clear at this early stage.

Big question

While the situation is still quite fluid, if we try to piece what we know together, here is the big question. “Is President Trump, in this critical 2020 election year, willing to engage in an undeclared war of attrition with Iran which will inevitably entail more terror attacks, possible disruption of oil flows in the Strait of Hormuz, strikes against Israel, and a lot more?”

Can Trump convince America that he has a good plan?

In other words, is America ready to absorb the blows that will inevitably come from Iran and its proxies, and forcefully retaliate in kind, whatever it takes, for as long as it takes? Furthermore, can the Trump administration present a credible “plan” that includes a clear path to something looking like “victory” against Iran?

Until yesterday, the plan was to exert maximum pressure against Tehran via economic sanctions, hoping that the significant pain inflicted by the sanctions would convince the Iranians to come back to the negotiating table and agree to whatever Washington demands.

Now it is different. After this assassination of a key Iranian military leader, forget about negotiating anything with Tehran. This being the case –open ended hostilities with Iran– if we continue with this tough stand against the Ayatollah’s regime, how is US public opinion going to react to all this? Will this escalation with Iran help Trump get reelected?

Paolo von Schirach is the Editor of the Schirach Report He is also the President of the Global Policy Institute, a Washington DC think tank, and Chair of Political Science and International Relations at Bay Atlantic University, also in Washington, DC




Iraq Is Lost

By Paolo von Schirach

WASHINGTON – Let’s not kid ourselves, Iraq is lost. Yes, totally lost. The events of the last few days make this crystal clear. We know that US forces retaliated against attacks by Kataib Hezbollah on military installations in Iraq in which there are some American troops and contractors. These frequent attacks against Americans have been directed by pro-Iranian militias, such as Kataib Hezbollah, trained and armed by Iran that are now part of the Iraqi armed forces. Furthermore, pro-Iranian Shiite political parties are in the Iraqi parliament and support the coalition government.

Assault against the US Embassy in Baghdad

Right after the US forceful retaliation (after attacks against US forces) that killed several members of the pro-Iranian militias, an Iraqi umbrella organization of pro-Iranian groups, called the Popular Mobilization Forces, organized an attack against the US Embassy in Baghdad.

This was done ostensibly to protest against the killing of members of the Iraqi forces by the wicked Americans. While the well-organized assault against the US compound was underway, the Iraqi military, according to international law responsible for guaranteeing the safety of all diplomatic facilities in the country, stood by and did nothing.

Along with this open display of anti-American sentiment, the same pro-Iranian groups now strongly demand the expulsion of all foreign (read American) military forces from Iraq. To make this even worse, Ayatollah Sistani, the most revered senior religious authority for all Iraqi Shia, added his powerful voice to the chorus of anti-American condemnations.

Iraq is controlled by pro-Iranian forces

So, this is the picture. The net result of the US March 2003 invasion of Iraq that ended up costing us a fortune, not to mention thousands of dead soldiers and tens of thousands injured, some of them horribly, is that now, at the beginning of 2020, it is quite clear that Iran controls Iraq. May be not totally, but almost.

The US, the supposedly friendly military power that ostensibly freed the Shia majority from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and his Sunni minority government, is viewed by most pro-Iranian Iraqi Shia as a hostile occupying force. And this is so because, after the US 2003 invasion, over time Iran managed to increase its influence within the Shia majority, so that today Tehran controls large Iraqi militias, and Iraqi Shia political parties heavily represented in Parliament.

This is not fixable

Let’s be real. In Iraq America has been defeated by a clever opponent. This is not fixable. We are outnumbered and outclassed in a country where most people do not like us. Short of a welcome but unlikely collapse of the wicked regime of the Ayatollahs and the Revolutionary Guard in Tehran, something that would cause the collapse of all Iranian efforts aimed at controlling the Region, there is no way that the US can win this fight.

In Iraq, we have almost no real allies. The only groups that are still sympathetic towards Washington are the Kurds in the north and some Sunni factions in the North West that clearly do not like the prospect of being dominated by Iran-backed Shias. But they are not going to coalesce in order to wage a bloody fight aimed at kicking Iran out of Iraq. This is impossible.

Can anything be salvaged?

So, there you have it. While this may be a bit oversimplified, the net result of the brilliant Washington plan hatched by President George W. Bush in early 2003 to engineer “regime change” in Baghdad with the goal of creating democracy in an Arab state is to have turned Iraq –at the time clearly an enemy of Iran– into a subsidiary of Tehran.

I have no idea as to what, if anything at all, may be salvageable at this stage. I suspect almost nothing, since Iraq’s politics and most of its military forces are dominated by our Iranian enemies.

The killing by a US airstrike at the Baghdad Airport of General Qassem Soleimani, the almost legendary head of the elite Iranian Quds force, is symbolically important; but it does not change the overall balance of forces in Iraq.

Of course, Soleimani will be immediately replaced, and the Iran-led anti-American campaign, in Iraq and everywhere else in the Middle East, if anything, will be intensified as a way to avenge this loss.

Unless President Trump just decided to have another Middle East War, with massive deployments of US forces in Iraq with the purpose of engaging and destroying all pro-Iranian militias, the killing of a major Iranian military leader will not change the overall picture –a picture that does not favor the US.

And, in case of a US escalation, we can rest assured that Iranian forces and their proxies will do their best to hit US targets and US allies anywhere they can. This will not be just about Iraq.




Europe’s Dreams

By Paolo von Schirach –

WASHINGTON – We heard from Ursula von der Leyen, the new President of the European Commission, that she will lead a “geopolitical” Commission. So, we are led to believe that, under her leadership, there will be deep thinking and strategizing about how to effectively combine the significant European economic, business, investments and military assets so that the EU will play a leading role on the world stage. From climate change to global development, international stability and cyber warfare, expect a cohesive, proactive Europe to be assertive and forceful when it will be necessary to foster stability and sustainability.

Big numbers hide structural weakness

Nice plan. Except that it is a total fantasy. The EU does not have and will not have the tools to become a dynamic force in world affairs. Sure, on the surface some EU numbers look very impressive. the EU total population is 512 million, much larger that America. If we put together the GDP of all its 27 members (UK on its way out) we get to about $ 19 trillion, almost the same as the US. If we combine defense spending of all EU Members we have the second largest defense budget in the world. And the EU is the largest foreign aid donor. Not to mention the clout of the EU in determining competition policy standards around the world, and a lot more.

So, a global force to be reckoned with? No, not really. The sad story about the EU is that these aggregate numbers are almost meaningless, simply because the EU, as conceived and currently structured, is unable to effectively combine the resources of all its members in order to obtain real synergies. And do not expect major institutional changes any time soon.

Dreams of a Federal Europe

Sadly, s strong Europe is destined to remain an unrealized dream. Right after WWII, there were a few fervent believers in a truly integrated new Europe that would have helped to eliminate the old intra-European rivalries, while redirecting the enormous potential of various European countries towards the goal of creating a new European Federal State. The European Federalist Movement led by Altiero Spinelli, and later on the Union of European Federalists, are the manifestations of this vision. However, these organizations never gained any real traction. They were and are essentially irrelevant.

EU is not a Federation

There is a European Union, of course; but it is not a Federal State, and it will never become one. Born out of the European Coal and Steel Community created in 1952 as a French olive branch to defeated Germany, the actual European project, (officially created in 1957, with the Treaties of Rome), went through many phases. It began as a European Common Market, then it developed into the European Community, and finally into the European Union. These name changes suggest an incremental integration process. And , in truth, there is more integration.

But Europe remains at its core an inter-governmental arrangement among sovereign states. Sure enough, a number of institutions have been created and nurtured, and all the EU Members agree to enforce EU norms and regulations on a large number of issues.

However, the qualitative step of merging all the Members States with the goal of creating a vibrant, unified European Federation was never taken, and I doubt that it will ever be taken. As a result, we have a hybrid. Certainly much more than a Free Trade Area, but a lot less than a real unified state.

A set of complex structures, laws and regulations

Over time, the EU created an extremely complex set of laws, rules and regulations enforced by a bureaucracy managed by Brussels based EU governing bodies. There is also a European Parliament that looks like a legislative body, however without the full sovereign powers of national parliaments. Some key EU states gave life to the Euro, the very successful European currency. And, of course, at the top of the pyramid, there is the EU executive body, the Commission, now presided over by Ms. von der Leyen. But the Commission President is not the elected Leader of Europe. She was nominated.

The Commission is led by a functionary

Therefore Ms. von der Leyen is not an elected political leader. She is a functionary. A very important functionary, with significant prerogatives, but still a functionary. The EU Commission enforces policy. Except for clearly designated areas, the EU carries out policy. It has no real, autonomous powers to make policy for Europe without the prior consent of the Member States.

No EU armed forces, no effective foreign policy

And this is only half the story. In order to affect global geopolitics, Europe should have credible tools. A critical one is a European foreign policy supported by real European armed forces.

Well, the EU has neither. Yes, it created the embryo of a foreign policy making body with a high official, (another appointed functionary), running it. But its discretionary powers are very limited. The EU can act in world affairs as one only if and when all the key Members agree on something. And this is very difficult, to put it mildly.

And when it comes to creating the backbone –that is real European armed forces– forget about it. There is nothing; and there will be nothing, except for high level commissions, studies and debates. And this is the case for various reasons. For a true European military force to be created, you would need as a foundation a robust political agreement among all EU Members on the size, purpose and command structure of such a force. And then Members would have to agree on an appropriate level of spending and how to pay for it.

Let NATO defend Europe

Politically, this is just too complicated. Besides, most EU Members are also NATO Members. Admittedly these days NATO’s purposes, force structure and capabilities are debatable. Still, NATO has the advantage of having been around since 1949. Whatever its shortcomings, it exists; while most European countries continue to believe that they are safe under what they would like to think is a still credible US security blanket.

Dreams and wishful thinking

So, here is the picture. In Europe dreams and fantasies abound, when it comes to a new, assertive EU role in the global arena. But there are no tools and therefore no real substance when it comes to the ability to play a credible, major role in world affairs. Ms. von der Leyen may talk about geopolitical goals for her Commission; but this is another instance of wishful thinking.