If you posit a President who is absent and unmanaged bureaucracy, is it possible that two branches, DOD and State, are working at cross purposes? I have suspected the same dynamic may have been at work in the Afghanistan withdrawal. Separately, a Russian response neednt be so blunt as a direct attack on a NATO country. It seems like a lo…
If you posit a President who is absent and unmanaged bureaucracy, is it possible that two branches, DOD and State, are working at cross purposes? I have suspected the same dynamic may have been at work in the Afghanistan withdrawal. Separately, a Russian response neednt be so blunt as a direct attack on a NATO country. It seems like a lot of the messaging around who can and cant operate missiles is establishing the idea that NATO set the precedent for the supplier to assist a proxy in an attack. I would think this might make NATO military bases potential targets if the provocations continue.
If you posit a President who is absent and unmanaged bureaucracy, is it possible that two branches, DOD and State, are working at cross purposes? I have suspected the same dynamic may have been at work in the Afghanistan withdrawal. Separately, a Russian response neednt be so blunt as a direct attack on a NATO country. It seems like a lot of the messaging around who can and cant operate missiles is establishing the idea that NATO set the precedent for the supplier to assist a proxy in an attack. I would think this might make NATO military bases potential targets if the provocations continue.