Trump on ISIS

In just over two months, President Trump has faced numerous obstacles. One of those involves the war in the Middle East, which he has not handled responsibly.

While campaigning, Trump reiterated his desire to defeat the Islamic State (ISIS). In a speech last August, he stated: “my administration will aggressively pursue joint and coalition military operations to crush and destroy ISIS, international cooperation to cut off their funding, expanded intelligence sharing, and cyber-warfare to disrupt and disable their propaganda and recruiting.” Though most of this cannot feasibly be accomplished in just two months, or even in a year, Trump has yet to put forth a preliminary formal plan in regard to ISIS while in office.

Americans should have been wary of Trump’s ability to defeat ISIS when he was unable to reveal his plan for doing so during his campaign, despite constant reassurances that he had one. When questioned more recently as to why he would not describe this grand plan, the president simply said that he did have one but the enemy shouldn’t know what it was, and would know if he made it public. These empty reassurances made it easier for millions of Americans to put their faith in Trump during the campaign.

Trump has openly criticized the ongoing offensive against Mosul, a city in Iraq that ISIS seized two years ago. Shortly before the election, he went so far as to say that it was an international conspiracy aimed at aiding Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The then-candidate also called the Mosul offensive a “total disaster” that makes the United States look “dumb.” Such strong words indicate that Trump likely did not understand the gains made, primarily by Iraqi troops, in countering ISIS in and around Mosul. Though taking the city proved difficult – and for many soldiers, deadly – it is important to recognize that substantial progress against the Islamic State has been made in doing so.

Parts of Mosul, however, remain uncaptured and under siege. ISIS currently has roughly 400,000 civilians in these areas that it plans to use as human shields. Despite these potential setbacks, the Iraqi army, working with U.S. forces, expects to retake the entire city. Given this positive outlook, it seems strange that Donald Trump would publically criticize the offensive. His criticism is even more odd when one takes into account his stance on veterans during his campaign. Some of his remarks about the offensive for Mosul seemed disrespectful to the families of soldiers killed in it. Despite Trump’s criticisms, he has continued to provide U.S. troops to fight in Mosul.

Some actions for which Trump bears some responsibility have proved disastrous for the people in Mosul. Currently the U.S. and Iraq are investigating whether an American-led coalition air strike caused the deaths of more than 100 there on March 17. If the U.S. is responsible, this will be one of the greatest losses of civilian lives since coalition airstrikes began in 2014. By killing civilians, even if by accident, Trump’s military decisions are likely aiding the process of radicalization among Iraqis more than effectively fighting global terrorism. Some of Trump’s actions against the Islamic State, and his attitude toward our current military offensive, have served to reinforce the belief that he is unlikely to follow through on many of his campaign promises and the fear that he is unfit for the role of Commander in Chief.

Uber: Silicon Valley Darling

Uber is at the center of renewed scandal after a flood of sexual harassment allegations revealed a widespread “bro culture” at the company. But it’s not the only startup to suffer under the questionable leadership of a “CEBro,” as Dan Lyons, a former senior editor for Forbes Magazine, recently called it in the New York Times. It is, actually, the latest in a long string of Silicon Valley darlings to come under increased scrutiny and criticism.

These 40ish man-child CEOs push a tech culture with campus-like headquarters instead of office buildings, nap lounges instead of cubicles, and company bars instead of water coolers. As Lyons argues, their offices “become corporate frat houses, where employees are chosen like pledges, based on ‘culture fit’ ” instead of merit. This work environment tends to alienate women and minorities, even leading some to quit.

Additionally, the relative immaturity of these so-called “CEBros” creates an environment in which reckless spending and excessive partying become the norm, and bad behavior is not just tolerated but encouraged. While the executives of these companies appear – at least at the surface level – to have great people skills, they have no clue how to manage their employees or run an expanding multi-billion dollar company. They surround themselves with like-minded people and fail to understand how to build a stable corporate structure. This is what led to Uber’s problems and ones that plague similar startups.  

Consider everyone’s favorite startup – Facebook. We got a dramatized look into its founding through “The Social Network,” but this is apparently only the tip of the iceberg. The company culture at Uber sounds more like “Wolf of Wall Street” than “The Office.” Top executives are little more than hustlers, winning over investors like Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch, who hold stakes of more than $1 billion each.

With man-children at the helm, the “bro culture” at Uber is not confined to the workplace’s physical aspects; it permeates the manner in which the company is run and expands. Initially, Uber dealt with customer safety problems after several women came forward about being sexually assaulted by their drivers. It then weathered corporate espionage lawsuits from Google, related to the development of self-driving cars. Sexual harassment allegations from their employees are only the latest problem. How many times can a high-profile “millennial” company be hit before it falls? Companies that are too reactive rather than proactive do not last long – if you don’t see a storm coming, it may tear you down. Startups like Uber have seemed to be the exception, but probably aren’t.  

Despite their cultural and structural flaws, startups like Uber still have great potential for making a positive impact on society as a whole. In identifying unmet problems in major areas of life, such as transportation or housing, these companies can revolutionize services in ways that make them more accessible or affordable. They can also pivot significantly faster than industrial giants, like Google or Unilever, because of their narrow, efficient focus. Moreover, these companies contribute to more than just app development. Uber, for example, is running a large behavioral science study to examine the motivation among independent contractors to maximize revenue for themselves and the corporations they work for. Companies across Silicon Valley are taking up new initiatives to contribute to scientific research and maximize profits.

It is my hope that potential founders see the failures in some of the successful tech-bubble companies and can modify the startup culture so it doesn’t produce toxic work environments. The experience of ventures that have been more successful in these respects can be taught to young founders, just as the Wharton School teaches the structures of the mainstream business community. They will see the storms coming and will be prepared with a sturdy foundation rather than a rickety fence.

Consolation

Consoling the sorrowful and broken-hearted looms as a daunting task for a true friend. The philosopher Iris Murdoch once wrote: “Bereavement is a darkness impenetrable to the imagination of the unbereaved.” It is an aptitude, an art, and a challenge, then, to accompany and console the bereft. It is not for the unmoved, the self-absorbed, or the apathetic; it is heroic work to search and help rescue a grief-stricken friend in the churning seas that have sundered their little boat.

Johannes Brahms was such an exceptional friend. Born in Hamburg, he is known to the world as an accomplished 19th-century pianist and master composer of symphony orchestras, piano and organ music, and chamber ensembles. His works, like those of Beethoven, Bach, and Haydn, influenced the 20th-century composers Schoenberg, Elgar, and Stravinsky. Unknown to most was his other role, as a life raft of sorts for the extraordinarily talented pianist Clara Schumann, wife of Robert Schumann.

Robert Schumann suffered from bouts of depression and delusions of persecution most of his adult life, culminating in a complete mental breakdown. After attempting suicide, he was committed to an insane asylum near Bonn in 1854, where he would die two years later from pneumonia, never having regained his mental abilities. Within this circle of despair, Brahms, a friend of both Robert and Clara, offered his steadfast support. He visited Robert in the asylum and helped Clara to recover and support her seven children.

On her own, Clara was an accomplished composer and piano virtuoso and continued to tour throughout Europe after Robert’s death. One can gain a glimpse of the profound importance of the relationship between Clara and Johannes through a letter she wrote to her children as adults: “You hardly knew your dear Father, you were still too young to feel deep grief, and thus in those terrible years you could give me no comfort. Hope, indeed, you could bring me, but it was not enough to support me through such agony. Then came Johannes Brahms. Your Father loved and admired him, as he did no man except Joachim,” the father of Mary, Jesus’s mother. “He came, like a true friend, to share all my sorrow; he strengthened the heart that threatened to break, he uplifted my mind, he cheered my spirit when- and where-ever he could; in short he was my friend in the fullest sense of the word.”

She later wrote of Brahms: “I can truly say, my children, that I never loved any friend as I did him – it is an exquisite harmony of soul. I love his freshness of mind, his wonderfully gifted nature, his noble heart, which I have learned to know in the course of years, as others cannot.” Clara and Johannes remained close friends for the rest of their lives. They never married, nor did they marry other people. They died nine months apart, Clara in 1896 and Johannes in 1897.

In their relationship, one sees the illustration of an essential theme: that friendships are critical to human happiness, to creative and psychological flourishing, and in some cases to human survival.  No human life is without loss or suffering. We do not get to pick what poisons our daily existence, but we do get to choose the medicine. Friendship is a divinely inspired inoculation against loneliness and sadness.  It can bring candor, wonder, patience, clarity, love, communion, affirmation, virtue, enchantment, mercy, and forgiveness to the fore. Greek philosophers were sophisticated in their understanding of love and taught about the rarity of the deepest kind of friendship, which they called philia. It was not defined by sexual or romantic passion, but by a quite different distinguishing characteristic. Philia would be analogous to two people walking side-by-side on life’s journey, not possessive of the other, but in communion, souls made out of the same cloth.  

Countless brilliant writers, playwrights, and poets have commented on the nature and necessity of deep friendships, of philia, such as that of Clara Schumann and Johannes Brahms. The Bard, Shakespeare himself in Hamlet, commanded: “Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried, Grapple them unto thy soul with hoops of steel.” Though he may have intended to indicate a cliché, he nonetheless describes with brilliance the strong friendship so many hold dear. The philosopher, scientist, and statesman Francis Bacon wrote that friendship “makes daylight in the understanding, out of darkness, and confusion of thoughts.” The 19th-century poet Emily Dickinson lamented: “Till the first friend dies, we think our ecstasy impersonal, but then discover he was the cup from which we drank it ...”

Friendships like that of Clara Schumann and Johannes Brahms are unusual in their intensity; they were given a special gift. The world can seem insubstantial, pitiless, or hollow when we suffer grief or loss, and deep friendships are a welcome lifeline helping one to gain calm, bearings, and perspective. They help to reinforce or awaken the best version of ourselves, even when all seems confused and chaotic. These relationships are intellectually transformative and spiritually illuminating, and, in the end, make our hearts sing – which is a rare thing indeed.

New Terror Tactic: Vehicular Attacks

On Wednesday, March 22, Khalid Masood drove a rented Hyundai Tucson onto the sidewalk of the Westminster Bridge in London. He plowed into the unsuspecting pedestrians before coming to a stop, exiting the vehicle and wielding a knife. In just 82 seconds, Masood killed five people—four civilians and one police officer—and injured 50. He was eventually shot and killed by a nearby officer.

ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack, stating that Masood was a soldier acting in their name. London deputy assistant police commissioner Neil Basu, however, said he might have been a lone wolf attacker. Regardless, police suggest he was inspired and radicalized by ISIS propaganda found online.

In the wake of the attack, the police arrested a dozen individuals they believed were linked to Masood. As of Saturday, though, nine had been released due to a lack of substantial evidence. Masood left no note, no statement of motive or reason; the only potentially related communication police have found is a WhatsApp message he sent shortly beforehand.

This was not the first time Masood displayed violent behavior. Beginning in 2003, he served three years in prison for an assault on a local pub owner with a knife. While in prison, he converted to Islam and changed his name. His radicalization occurred swiftly thereafter. His second wife, Farzana Malik – or Isaq, as her surname has also been reported – fled from their home, insisting upon divorce when he tracked her down. She described Masood as a “psychopath,” and her family members described him as very violent and controlling.

In the last year or so, attacks using tactics similar to Masood’s have increased significantly. In December, Anis Armi killed a Polish truck driver and stole his truck, driving it into the Christmas Market in Berlin. He killed twelve people and injured 65. Last July, Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel drove a rented cargo truck into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day in Nice, France. Eighty-six people were killed and 434 were injured. Similar attacks involving vehicles have taken place in Quebec (October 2014); Valence, France (January 2016); and Jerusalem (this January).

Even the U.S. is not safe from these types of attacks. In November, an Ohio State student, Abdul Razak Ali Artan, rammed his car into pedestrians on campus and attacked other students with a machete. He injured eleven before he was shot and killed by a campus police officer.

ISIS has taken to promoting these sorts of attacks by its followers in its propaganda. The attacks are inexpensive, and very efficient in the sense that they often result in high casualties while gaining prominent media attention. In addition, they achieve the primary goal, terror, exceedingly well. ISIS encourages its followers to conduct them in busy areas, particularly tourist attractions, where they will likely attract a large international audience due to wider coverage. Attacks of this sort are also a means by which followers, or those inspired by ISIS or other terrorist organizations, can easily act in the name of their groups.

The biggest challenge for police in the wake of these incidents is preventing similar attacks in the future. Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) programs are still developing in many cities and countries. While London, for example, has a very successful program and is a hub for CVE research, it’s clear that some attackers still easily avoid detection until it is too late.

Professor Anthony Glees of the University of Buckingham suggests that rental car companies should inquire as to their customers’ motives and report any suspicious people to the police. Doing so will not prevent carjackings or attackers using their own cars. Nevertheless, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice have encouraged similar reporting in the U.S., asking companies to tell the police about customers who are reluctant to provide personal information, pay in cash for large transactions, or appear overly concerned with the size and specifications of their vehicles.

While we may not have a tried-and-true method for preventing these types of attacks at the moment, progress is being made. As academics and think tanks conduct research to help in further development of both government-run and independent CVE programs, police and counterterrorism forces are working to prevent as many attacks as possible and stop the radicalization of people like Masood.

The Trump Administration’s Response to a Nuclear North Korea

Despite the implementation of various sanctions and several UN Security Council resolutions, North Korea under the leadership of Kim Jong-un has continued to develop nuclear weapons. In 2016 alone, it conducted two nuclear explosions and more than 20 missile tests. More recently, North Korea test-fired a volley of missiles off the coast of Japan. It also tested an intermediate-range missile that used solid fuel – a feat which disarmament experts have called a significant advance.

Even more startling, perhaps, are North Korea’s claims that the missiles are intended for the United States. In March of 2016, the state-controlled media released a propaganda video depicting a nuclear strike on Washington, along with a warning to “American imperialists” not to provoke the country. The four-minute video clip, titled “Last Chance,” uses computer animation to show an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) slamming into what appears to be the Lincoln Memorial.

“If the American imperialists provoke us a bit, we will not hesitate to slap them with a pre-emptive nuclear strike,” read the Korean subtitles in the video, adding: “the United States must choose! It’s up to you whether the nation called the United States exists on this planet or not.” Shortly after, Kim Jong-un announced that North Korea was in the “final stage” of preparation for the first launch of an ICBM that could reach the U.S.

North Korea released a similar propaganda film, coupled with a high-thrust rocket engine test, following Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s first official visit to South Korea. According to the New York Times, the video depicted an American aircraft carrier and a warplane being destroyed in computer-generated balls of fire. North Korea’s missiles will be “stabbed into the throat of the carrier” and the jet will “fall from the sky,” it warns.

A day later, North Korea issued a statement saying the country would not be deterred from developing nuclear weapons. “The nuclear force is the treasured sword of justice and the most reliable war deterrence to defend the socialist motherland and the life of its people,” said a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry. Classified assessments of the country conducted under the Obama administration indicate that Kim believes his nuclear weapons program is the only way to guarantee the survival of his regime and will never trade it away for economic or other benefits.

Unlike the Obama administration, however, President Trump and his top deputies are determined not to let such behavior continue without repercussions. “Let me be very clear: The policy of strategic patience has ended,” Secretary Tillerson said to the press while touring the demilitarized zone between the two Koreas. “We are exploring a new range of diplomatic, security and economic measures. All options are on the table.” Tillerson hinted that the options might include more vigorous enforcement of sanctions, ramping up anti-missile defenses, cutting off North Korea’s oil, and even taking pre-emptive military action if the North Koreans elevate “the threat of their weapons program” to a level deemed unacceptable.

Tillerson has also publicly ruled out any negotiation with North Korea to freeze its nuclear and missile programs, although this was a central component of past administrations’ policies. He argues that negotiations “can only be achieved by denuclearizing, giving up their weapons of mass destruction.” Even with a nuclear freeze, North Korea’s capabilities are advanced enough to threaten U.S. allies and military bases in Northeast Asia. The rejection of negotiations for a freeze is consistent with the approach taken by President Obama, who declined Chinese offers to restart the so-called six-party talks unless the North first agreed that the goal of the negotiations would be the “complete, verifiable, irreversible” dismantling of its program.

It also appears as though the Trump administration blames China, North Korea’s strongest ally, for the continued dalliance with nuclear weapons. “North Korea is behaving very badly,” Trump tweeted recently. “They have been ‘playing’ the United States for years. China has done little to help!” The Trump administration has raised the prospect of disciplinary measures against American companies in China, in response to growing evidence of their involvement in building components that are used in North Korea’s weapons programs.

Additionally, Trump administration officials have discussed putting pressure on Chinese banks through secondary sanctions– a technique that worked against Iran – which would make it hard for any bank that did business with North Korea to also deal in American dollars. Former defense secretary William Perry has said that he doubts their value. “We have sanctioned them a hundred times, and it didn’t stop developing nuclear weapons,” he noted. “They seem to be prepared to suffer economic deprivation for the people so they can achieve the preservation of the regime, which they think that nuclear weapons is going to do for them.”

With regard to sanctions, Tillerson says there is more that the international community could do to pressure North Korea: “I don’t believe we have ever fully achieved the maximum level of action that can be taken under the United Nations Security Council resolutions … we know other nations could take actions to alter their relationship with North Korea.”

With these discussions occurring fewer than 100 days into the new administration, it is clear that Trump and his advisors have no intention of placing North Korea on the back burner. Though previous administrations recognized the threat that the North’s nuclear weapons program poses to the United States, Trump seems to be the first president who is willing to tackle the problem head-on, even if it means working outside the realm of the UN. However, only time will tell if he can successfully facilitate the denuclearization of North Korea.  If he succeeds, he will have begun to fulfill his promise to “make America safe again.”

Melania as FLOTUS

The tradition of the First Lady taking up a social cause during her time in office developed from Dolley Madison’s role as a hostess at the White House while her husband James was president more than 200 years ago. After the recent presidential election, we have a new First Lady, Melania Trump, along with the new president. We have also lost a vital role model in Michelle Obama – a dignified and caring woman who, while not all agreed with her, always carried herself with respect.

On the campaign trail, Melania shied away from cameras and speeches. She hosted a few fundraisers, but that is quite different from making appeals to the general public, and she rarely gave public testimonials. We all remember her catastrophe of a speech at the Republican national convention, when she appropriated large chunks of text from Michelle Obama’s 2008 speech at the Democratic convention. As CNN reported: “Melania Trump’s speech was warmly received by the rowdy Republican crowd but did not include behind-the-scenes glimpses of life in Trump Tower or other details that might offer some insight into the man behind the image.”

The lack of such details in the speech was an early indicator of Melania’s current image as a reluctant presidential spouse. In Donald Trump’s first month and a half in office, she is much more seen than heard. She makes rare appearances at his major speeches but is never leading events of her own. She has, however, apparently decided what her cause will be as First Lady: She will work vigilantly to end cyber-bullying.

While this choice is amusing considering her husband’s behavior on social media, Melania has committed herself to fight, for children across the country, against a problem that is currently beyond effective control by parents and school administrators. More generally, she says she will focus on women’s and children’s issues. Although Melania has yet to begin doing much on these issues, Ivanka Trump has stepped up to fulfill many duties of the First Lady – attending state events, hosting dignitaries at the White House, and serving as a role model figure for young girls who one day hope to experience corporate success of their own.    

Melania also proclaimed that she wants to revive the legacies of Jackie Kennedy and Betty Ford, both of whom were very “traditional” first ladies. Now, Melania may be too young to remember Kennedy and Ford, but they were far from traditional – these women laid the foundation for the active first ladies of the past two decades. The most recent first ladies adopted active roles in their position to take on national healthcare, education, and childhood obesity. Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush, and Michele Obama heralded a new type of First Lady who uses her position of power in the press and the eyes of the citizens to do good.

Melania will probably not make any impact against cyber-bullying if she continues to lack a substantive presence in the public eye. If she continues to shy away from speeches, hides away in Trump Tower, and refuses to manage her own image and only promotes President Trump’s, Melania will fade into obscurity as she sits next to the most powerful man in the country.