Author: Media Watch

  • Weakened US sanctions threat lingers in wake of Turkish deal with Russia

    Weakened US sanctions threat lingers in wake of Turkish deal with Russia


    Article Summary
    Possible US sanctions on Turkey are looming as fighting subsides in northeast Syria and Kurdish forces draw back following an agreement between Ankara and Moscow.

    Two weeks after Turkey launched Operation Peace Spring in northeast Syria to expel Kurdish militants from its southern border and establish a so-called safe zone, fighting has largely ended as result of an agreement reached by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday.

    Meeting in Sochi, the two leaders agreed to deploy their forces across most of the northeastern Syrian border and conduct joint patrols along a corridor 10 kilometers (6 miles) deep, while Kurdish-led forces supported by the United States have withdrawn from an area 30 kilometers (19 miles) deep. Meanwhile, the Operation Peace Spring area between the Syrian towns of Tell Abyad and Ras al-Ain will remain under the control of the Turkish military and Turkish-backed Syrian forces.

    The Syrian regime stated Wednesday it would establish 15 observation posts in the region. Turkish officials will seek to reestablish terms set by the 1998 Adana agreement between Ankara and Damascus in which Turkish forces would be able to carry out security operations within a 5-kilometer (3-mile) band along the Syrian border.

    “Adana more or less gives Turkey what it wants … [which is] to break the US-SDF agreement,” said Aaron Stein, director of the Middle East program at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, using the acronym for the US-backed, Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, which Ankara considers a security threat.

    Also read

    Syria ConflictTrump administration scrambles to salvage US troop presence in Syria

    “But the political cost of doing that was to de facto recognize [President] Bashar al-Assad,” Stein continued. “Now Turkey has been resisting this, albeit while engaging with the regime’s two principal allies, Russia and Iran. This just brings Turkey more squarely into the camp that the regime is the arbiter of security along its border.”

    The developments come after US President Donald Trump removed about 1,000 US troops stationed in the region, greenlighting the Turkish operation with aims to disentangle Washington from the Syrian conflict, where American forces have coordinated operations to eradicate Islamic State militants since 2014. Prior to Erdogan’s agreement with Putin, US officials had secured a five-day cease-fire in northeast Syria during an Oct. 17 visit to Ankara.

    Speaking on Wednesday morning, Trump said Turkish officials had informed him the cease-fire would be “permanent” and that he would lift economic sanctions in response.

    “This was an outcome created by us,” Trump told reporters in a press conference.

    Yet as Russian and Syrian regime forces take control of border areas not held by Turkish forces, the imposition of previously threatened US sanctions on Turkey looms large in Washington, where officials continue to debate a response to fast-developing dynamics in northeast Syria.

    On Oct. 9, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham introduced a sanctions bill in an effort to stop Turkey’s cross-border incursion, but support for the legislation has wavered as lawmakers recover from whiplash induced by a number of power plays in northeast Syria. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has since cautioned lawmakers to “think extremely carefully” before sanctioning Turkey and pushing Ankara “into the arms of the Russians.”

    “I’m aware there is some appetite on both sides of the aisle to quickly reach for the toolbox of sanctions,” McConnell said on the Senate floor this Tuesday. “I’m open to the Senate considering them,” he said, but added that caution would be needed moving forward.

    Though Trump said he would repeal sanctions imposed on Oct. 14 by executive order, Ankara can still be subjected to penalties stemming from the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) for the nation’s acquisition of the Russian-made S-400 missile defense system earlier this year.

    While some Washington lawmakers support employing CAATSA sanctions against Turkey, their imposition has been stalled by Trump, who continues to negotiate with Turkish officials in effort to secure the purchase of US-made Patriot missiles to replace the S-400 system, which has been said to pose security risks to NATO military equipment. Still, additional Turkey sanctions bills may arise in Washington as the fallout continues due to numerous human rights abuses, including the alleged use of white phosphorus during Operation Peace Spring.

    “If there was one sanctions bill in addition to CAATSA, it could move towards joining the EU arms embargo, but circumscribing it to weapons that could be used for offensive operations in Syria,” Stein told Al-Monitor, referring to the suspension of arms exports to Turkey by European nations in response to the Syrian incursion. “If there are no offensive operations in Syria, then there may not be the impetus for the sanctions.”

    In the economic sphere, the Turkish lira gained on the dollar following the Erdogan-Putin meeting and rallied further after Trump’s press conference. The lira opened on Wednesday at 5.80 to the dollar and reached 5.72 at the time of reporting. Wolf Piccoli, co-president and political risk analyst at Teneo Intelligence, said the Russia-Turkey agreement would likely have little impact on Turkey’s economic outlook, but “the main risk in the short term remains possible US sanctions.”

    “It will be interesting to monitor the reaction of Congress to the Ankara-Moscow agreement,” Piccoli told Al-Monitor. “However, the risk of sanctions is unlikely to change due to this deal.” He added, “The main driver for the lira remains overall market sentiment, especially towards emerging markets.”

    For the time being, the Kurdish-led SDF forces linked with the People’s Protection Units (YPG) have reportedly been adhering to the agreement reached in Sochi and withdrawing from the Turkish border area in northeast Syria. Following the pullout of US forces, Ankara will oversee its border security with the Syrian regime and Russian intermediaries.

    Stein said the implementation of the Adana agreement was “politically symbolic” as it means Ankara must now recognize the Syrian regime in order to put pressure, via Damascus, on YPG forces that had enjoyed US support under the SDF coalition.

    “It goes to show that when they had to choose, the US was offering more or less the same deal, but the US was offering the same deal with accommodation to the SDF,” Stein told Al-Monitor. “Russia’s deal offered accommodation with the regime and Turkey chose that because their priority was to break the SDF structure.”

    Found in: Turkish-Kurdish conflict, Syria Conflict, Sanctions

    Diego Cupolo is a freelance journalist and photographer based in Ankara, Turkey. His work has appeared in The Atlantic, The Financial Times, Foreign Policy and The New Statesman, among other publications

     

  • Sen. Rand Paul: Syria, Turkey, the Kurds and the right role for the US – A roadmap for peace

    Sen. Rand Paul: Syria, Turkey, the Kurds and the right role for the US – A roadmap for peace

    Betula Nelson (betneluk@yahoo.co.uk)
    Sen. Rand Paul

    By Sen. Rand Paul | Fox News

    President Trump did the wise thing by moving 50 soldiers out of the way of tens of thousands of invading Turks. There can be no doubt that the situation in Northern Syria involving Turkey, the Kurds, and Syria is messy, complicated, and potentially costly. The only questions are for whom, as well as what is the role of the United States.
    Regarding the problem with the Turks and the Kurds, we have to realize a certain reality: the Turks and Kurds were fighting before we arrived in Syria … or even Iraq.  They were fighting while we were there. And they will be fighting after we leave. The only question is what day we leave.
    If that is true, why would we stay one day longer than we need to? Whose son or daughter should risk their life? Whose taxpayer funds should go to policing this area?
    I say not mine.  And not yours, either.

    We are in our current position because our well-intentioned policies have turned out to be just plain bad decisions.  Our military interventions in the Middle East have led to more chaos, not less, and more terrorism, not less.  The foreign policy swamp — Republicans and Democrats — have over-militarized our foreign policy; they have an inexplicable need to see an existential threat to our country behind every rock.

    But there is a way we could all possibly look at this in a new way, together. I offer that we take a collective deep breath and rationally try to find a way forward. A way out of these quagmires. A way to secure our interests. A way to return to true leadership in the world. A way to lead by example through influence and not bayonets. A way to concentrate more on diplomacy and less on deployments.

    We went into Syria, sideways, on the pretext of going after ISIS, but the war caucus, led by Lindsey Graham, saw an opportunity to expand our mission into nation-building. President Trump, though, was clear from the beginning. His intention was to defeat ISIS. While the president’s mission was clear, he did, however, keep U.S. troops in Syria without the congressional authorization the Constitution requires.

    South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham and the neocons, however, have always had more ulterior motives. The neocons want Assad gone and a U.S.-guarded homeland for the Syrian Kurds.  They opine that ISIS will return if we don’t stay forever (their same argument for eternal occupation of every place on the planet that harbors radical Islamists).

    We are at a place where our strategic objectives have been confused. We are no longer aligning our ends, ways, and means to reach a desired end state. If we are completely honest, we don’t really have an achievable end state.

    The neocons also claim the Kurds will release the ISIS prisoners.  (This claim is absurd, as the brutality of ISIS would immediately fall on the people of Syria).  The Kurds would be insane to release the ISIS prisoners, as they would be the first victims.  In fact, no country in this five-sided war wants to deal with ISIS again.

    We are at a place where our strategic objectives have been confused. We are no longer aligning our ends, ways, and means to reach a desired end state. If we are completely honest, we don’t really have an achievable end state.

    This is a growing problem in our military adventures around the world because we have gone beyond the typical defined mission for our armed forces: winning a war, then leaving.

    Even the military will tell you there is no achievable military goal in Syria. Yet, we are still there. The neocons are quick to say we have a vital national security interest in Syria. Really? If so, state it. If so, debate it on the Senate floor. Our Founding Fathers defined a path for our nation to go to war, and that path must include a constitutional debate and a declaration of war.

    The neocons are partnered now with the liberal Clinton establishment in bashing the president and loudly saying we should stay in Syria. But if these loudmouths came to Congress as the Constitution requires, who would they declare war on? Syria? Turkey? Russia? Iran? Our previous ally, the Free Syrian Army?

    Ousting Assad and establishing a Jeffersonian democracy (or even a Californian democracy) in Syria is clearly beyond what we as a nation should be willing to do.  Thucydides said nations go to war for “Fear, Honor, and Interest.” Unfortunately, we have clouded interest, are irrational about fear, and dwell too heavily on honor.  We need to realign our attitude to return to the more traditional American foreign policy of strength through restraint.

    I will not attempt to justify Turkey’s perceived, real, or politically motivated security concerns that have led them to conduct their current operations.  If asked by their government, I would urge them to stop immediately and use diplomacy, with our assistance.

    At the very least, I would insist they show restraint in their actions and make sure they were operating well inside the law of armed conflict.  I would also argue for the Kurds to show similar restraint in any form of reprisals against the Turks.  I don’t advocate for the needless use of military force by any country, including my own.  But this current battle is a symptom of a bigger problem that I hope our country can find a way to solve.

    How do we reach an end state that meets our security needs as well as finds an end to the on-going tragedy? Unemotionally, I offer the following broad outline of a strategy that will hopefully get us to that end state.

    • U.S. forces in the region must be repositioned outside of the battle zone.  Our few forces near the border are at risk and serve no realistic deterrent.  They aren’t enough to stop the Turks, nor should we ask them to do that, and they won’t be able to temper the Kurds.
    • We must urge all sides to have a real, lasting, immediate tactical ceasefire.  This will require dialogue between Turkey’s Erdogan and Syria’s Assad.
    • Instead of stoking war by arming all sides of every Middle Eastern conflict, we should withhold arms as leverage to encourage diplomacy.  We must use whatever diplomatic leverage and limited influence we have left in the area to call for regional talks to find solutions to the more strategic problems.

    Ironically, less U.S. involvement has already led to fertile negotiations between the Syrian Kurds and Assad.  Realistically, any chance for a Kurdish semi-autonomous zone (similar to the one in Iraq) will only happen if the Kurds can make peace first with Assad, and then Assad must give assurances to Erdogan that he will keep the Syrian Kurds in Syria and at peace with the Turks.

    We must be prepared to compromise as a way of seeking this “grand bargain.”  We can’t let our ego, or our pursuit of honor, make us think we can make it all look exactly as we want through the sheer force of our will.  We will have to find the courage in ourselves to accept the art of the possible or maybe even practical.

    Republican Rand Paul represents Kentucky in the United States Senate. He is the author of “The Case Against Socialism” (Broadside Books, October 15, 2019).

  • Cyprus Launches Drones To Monitor Turkish Gas Drilling In Mediterranean

    Two of the legal worlds that I straddle – energy and aviation – collided last week in the Mediterranean Sea. The implications for these two disciplines, as well as world security, could be enormous.

    The nation of Cyprus deployed drones to monitor Turkish attempts to drill for natural gas in waters claimed by the divided nation. Turkey’s action added to the tension in a region already roiling from the migrant problem, the recent Turkish invasion of Syria, and the overall Middle East uncertainty.

    To understand the move by Cyprus, we must start with the fact that Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974 and divided the island in half. Populated mostly by residents of Greek and Turkish ancestry, the island long had been dominated by the more populous Greeks. Most of the island nation, excluding the northern part described below, calls itself the Republic of Cyprus.

    Today In: Business

    Since 1974, Turkey has occupied the northern part of the island, setting up its own rump state called the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, or Northern Cyprus for short. Northern Cyprus is recognized as an independent country by only one nation – Turkey. The Republic of Cyprus continues to declare sovereignty over the disputed north.

    The Turkish occupation of the northern half of Cyprus has long been an open sore in the permanently problematic relationship between Greece and Turkey, to say nothing of the internationally recognized nation of Cyprus. Since 2004, Cyprus has been a member of the European Union as a “de facto divided island.” The EU’s official position is that it “fully supports the current negotiations between the leaders of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities which aim to reach a comprehensive settlement leading to the reunification of the island and establish a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation in which the communities would enjoy political equality.”

    Add to this the coming to power, and the consolidation of power, of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Erdogan is the leader of the Justice and Development Party, known as the AKP. This is a Muslim fundamentalist party that has moved slowly but inexorably toward injecting religion into the secular Turkish state first created after World War I by Mustafa Ataturk. Long a western ally, Turkey in the Erdogan era is now a very different place whose commitment to western values has increasingly been questioned.

    Within the last decade, massive natural gas deposits were found in the Mediterranean near the territorial waters of Cyprus, Greece and Israel, three countries from whom Erdogan purposely has distanced Turkey. Erdogan’s mistrust was increased when these three reached agreements on the gas, including exploration, development, and the construction of a gas pipeline to Greece.

    For Erdogan, this was too much. He sent the Turkish drilling ship Yaviz to drill for gas inside what Cyprus claims as block 7 of its exclusive economic zone. Cyprus previously had licensed this area to be explored for natural gas by Italy’s Eni and France’s Total.

    Cyprus responded by purchasing sophisticated Israeli drones and deploying them to shadow the Yaviz. The introduction of the drones increases the risk of accident, raises the possibility in Turkish eyes that the drones might be used for offensive purposes, and adds yet another element of instability into the region.

    In airport parlance, drones are known as “UAS’s” (Unmanned Aircraft Systems). Their use is incredibly beneficial yet incredibly problematic, for the reasons shown by the Yaviz incident. Monitors are easy and cheap ways to keep “eyes in the sky”, but as we saw in Saudi Arabia last month drones can be used for offensive military purposes. The aviation world is struggling mightily with the effects of drones, not sure how to balance the obvious benefits with the potential adverse impacts on world aviation.

    Facing massive international pressure over his Syrian incursion, it remains to be seen how far Erdogan will be willing to go to prevent Cyprus, Israel and Greece from developing these Mediterranean gas fields. The failure of the West to stand up to his incursion in Syria may embolden him in other spheres. There is no way to tell. If he does become emboldened, it is not surprising that energy may provide the vehicle for Erdogan to do so. Regardless, we have likely not heard the last of the Mediterranean gas dispute. As with everything else in that region, what might be an economic boon capable of lifting the standard of living for millions could instead become a focal point for further international conflict. Such is the world in which we live.

    Daniel Markind is a shareholder at Flaster Greenberg PC who practices in Energy, Real Estate, Corporate, and Aviation Law. He can be reached at daniel.markind@flastergreenberg.com. Any opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of Flaster Greenberg PC.

    Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website.

  • Sanctioning the Government of Turkey in Response to the Ongoing Military Offensive in Northeast Syria

    Sanctioning the Government of Turkey in Response to the Ongoing Military Offensive in Northeast Syria

     

     

    1111

    On Friday, the United States signaled its intent to take action in response to Turkey’s ongoing unilateral military offensive in northeast Syria. President Donald J. Trump has now signed an Executive Order to press Turkey to halt its military offensive against northeast Syria and adopt an immediate ceasefire. The Executive Order gives the Department of Treasury and the Department of State, the authority to consider and impose sanctions on individuals, entities, or associates of the Government of Turkey involved in actions that endanger civilians or lead to the further deterioration of peace, security, and stability in northeast Syria. Three senior Turkish officials, the Ministry of Energy, and the Ministry of Defense have been designated for sanctions under these authorities, concurrent with the signing of the Executive Order.

    As the President has made clear, Turkey’s actions in northeast Syria severely undermine the D-ISIS campaign, endanger civilians, and threaten the security of the entire region. If Turkey’s operation continues, it will exacerbate a growing and daunting humanitarian crisis, with potentially disastrous consequences. To avoid suffering further sanctions imposed under this new Executive Order Turkey must immediately cease its unilateral offensive in northeast Syria and return to a dialogue with the United States on security in northeast Syria.

  • Trump withdraws U.S. forces from northern Syria, and administration scrambles to respond

    Trump withdraws U.S. forces from northern Syria, and administration scrambles to respond

    The morning’s most important stories, curated by Post editors.

    (AFP via Getty Images)

    Trump withdraws U.S. forces from northern Syria, and administration scrambles to respond

    “This is total chaos,” a senior administration official said on a day when Cabinet secretaries denied that the United States had “abandoned” its Syrian Kurdish allies to invading Turkish forces.
    By Karen DeYoung, Dan Lamothe, Missy Ryan and Kareem Fahim  ●  Read more »

    Democrats and Republicans on Oct. 13 criticized President Trump’s withdrawal of U.S. troops from positions in northern Syria. (JM Rieger/The Washington Post)

    October 13 at 10:46 PM

    President Trump’s order to withdraw essentially all U.S. forces from northern Syria came after the commander in chief privately agitated for days to bring troops home, according to administration officials — even while the Pentagon was making public assurances that the United States was not abandoning its Kurdish allies in the region.

    The officials, granted anonymity to describe internal deliberations, described Trump as “doubling down” and “undeterred,” despite vociferous pushback from congressional Republicans who have been loath to challenge the president apart from a few issues, such as national security.

    Behind the scenes, Trump has tried to convince advisers and lawmakers that the United States is not to blame for Turkey’s military offensive, which has targeted Kurdish fighters who have aided the U.S. fight against the Islamic State.

    But experts — and many Republicans — say otherwise. And even Trump allies say the president needs to do a better job of selling the troop withdrawal to the public, beyond tweets.

    The escalating crisis in northern Syria has prompted further criticism from foreign policy heavyweights in Trump’s party, who argue that the president’s strategies abroad send a concerning message to allies and endanger regional partners.

    “I’ve always looked at the approach the administration takes as very transactional and very short-term in nature,” former senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a phone interview Sunday. “It’s almost seeking headlines for the very next day, but not really thinking through the longer-term impact on our ­country.”

    In a tweet and later in the interview, Corker warned against the decision to withdraw support for Kurdish forces, telling The Post that it was a “blight on our character.” He said, too, that it would only embolden Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has given no indication that he would halt the offensive that began Wednesday despite the threat of sanctions from the U.S. Congress and international condemnation.

    “To pull the rug out and to do so in such a hasty manner, where there’s been no preparation, nothing has been done to limit the damage to them, and as [former defense secretary Jim] Mattis and others have said, this is going to create additional activities, additional opportunities for ISIS . . . it’s bad all the way around,” said Corker, who has remained relatively quiet since he left office in January.

    Such criticisms have been echoed publicly and privately by current Republican elected officials who have been increasingly alarmed by the withdrawal, announced in a late-night White House statement on Oct. 6 and fully fleshed out by Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper on Sunday.

    Trump has closely watched that kind of public criticism in recent days — complaining frequently about comments from Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) in particular — but has been encouraged to stay the course by other allies who support a withdrawal, such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Fox News Channel host Tucker Carlson, according to administration officials.

    The president, one senior administration official said, was particularly heartened by a segment from another Fox News host, Lou Dobbs, defending him last week.

    A U.S. soldier sits atop an armored vehicle in Syria’s Hasakeh province near the Turkish border on Oct. 6. (Delil Souleiman/Afp Via Getty Images)

    For his part, Graham appeared to be more aligned with Trump on Sunday evening, saying that he planned to work with Democratic and Republican lawmakers on economic sanctions against Turkey.

    “The outrage in Syria about Turkey continues. The ripple effect I was concerned about has happened at a faster pace than I believed. The administration needs to be far more aggressive,” Graham said in an interview.

    Graham and Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) have drafted legislation that would place sanctions on the U.S. assets of people at the highest levels of the Turkish government, including Erdogan, as well as on any military transactions with Turkey.

    The two are circulating their plan among Senate offices.

    Graham and Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) have also asked Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) to arrange a briefing from the Pentagon and State Department, as well as intelligence officials, on the withdrawal.

    An aide to Schumer deferred to the majority leader’s office, although Schumer has said that he wants Esper; Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., the head of U.S. Central Command, to appear publicly before senators. A spokesman for McConnell said Sunday that he had no announcements to make. A private briefing could help shape the congressional response, as could a closed-door Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Syria scheduled for Thursday morning.

    Some Republican donors and officials worried that Trump’s decision would trap them in an untenable situation and have deleterious effects around the world. Furthermore, the significant intraparty rift is coming at a time when Trump particularly needs Republican support as he faces the threat of impeachment.

    “Republican senators are going to increasingly resemble a herd of ostriches with their heads in the sand,” said Dan Eberhart, a prominent Republican donor. “They don’t want to break with Trump while simultaneously wanting to disagree with his policy on allowing Turkey to get away with exterminating the Kurds inside Syria.”

    Still, Trump has resisted the repeated urging from some of his closest allies to intervene in the situation and has become more convinced that bringing troops home is both the right decision and a key political promise to fulfill ahead of the 2020 ­election.

    That view has been reinforced by the reaction from supporters. At a campaign rally in Minneapolis last week, the crowd chanted “Bring them home!” as Trump noted that U.S. troops had been in Afghanistan — the longest war in American history — for nearly two decades.

    During deliberations in the past, Trump has repeatedly pushed to remove troops from Syria but has usually been dissuaded by top officials, such as John F. Kelly, his former chief of staff.

    The usual argument against removing troops, according to former senior administration officials, would be that doing so would cause widespread deaths and chaos and Trump would be blamed for it.

    “Normally, convincing him he would be blamed for death and chaos could keep it from happening at least at that moment,” one former senior administration official said.

    But current administration officials say many moderating officials like Kelly are gone, and longtime friends say the move is consistent with Trump’s worldview — and that he has long wanted to do this.

    “When he looks at a conflict, he’ll say, do we have a national interest? What is our national interest?” said Chris Ruddy, a Trump ally. “A secondary thing is the money issue. Why are we spending billions, if not trillions, in places like Afghanistan and the Middle East?”

    Corker also suggested that the president’s decision was swayed by a circle of current advisers putting “un-thought-out ideas in the president’s head.”

    “I just have known through my years there that so many people have access to the president,” Corker said, declining to name them. “Typically, you want the people who are giving input to have credentials and have knowledge of the area, but I know that’s not the case necessarily today.”

    Some Trump allies were urging him to do more. Retired Gen. Jack Keane, who regularly speaks with Trump and has been a candidate for positions in the past, said he should quickly enforce a no-fly zone and warn Turkish officials that there would be retaliation.

    Keane said international allies had flooded the State Department with concerns about trusting the United States.

    “All is not lost,” he said. But not doing anything, he said, “sends a message about trust and reliability, something the United States has taken some pride in since World War II, that we can be counted on.”

  • It’s clear. Trump doesn’t want to be president anymore.

    It’s clear. Trump doesn’t want to be president anymore.

    President Trump walks to board Marine One on the South Lawn at the White House on Oct. 10. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
    President Trump walks to board Marine One on the South Lawn at the White House on Oct. 10. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
    Oct. 11, 2019 at 5:10 p.m. EDT

    Nancy Gibbs, a former managing editor of Time, is the director of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

    With each passing day, President Trump flaunts his great and unmatched wisdom and so invites us to play armchair, arm’s-length therapists. So let me float an untested theory about what is unfolding before our eyes. And then let’s test it.

    ARTICLE CONTINUING IN THE FOLLOWING LINK

     

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/11/its-clear-trump-doesnt-want-be-president-anymore/