Posted on Jul 10, 2017
Trump amateur hour with Putin threatens U.S. security
2.71K
22
16
2
2
0
Interesting opinion piece. The author of this opinion is a Russia specialist and professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College.
Trump amateur hour with Putin threatens U.S. security
Posted from usatoday.comPosted in these groups: 
Office of the President (POTUS)
National Security
Office of the President (POTUS) National Security
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
5
5
0
He lost me when he selectively quoted Merkel and never got me back. Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach ... and write opinion pieces.
I was curious enough to look him up:
[begin quote] Tom Nichols is a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, at the Harvard Extension School, a Sovietologist, and a five-time undefeated Jeopardy! champion.[1][2][3] He is a senior contributor at The Federalist and the author of seven books.[4] Previously he was a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, and the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.[1] He also worked for Senator John Heinz as personal staff for defense and security affairs.[1]
He was a member of the Never Trump movement and one of "the most eloquent conservative voices against President Trump."[5] During the 2016 presidential campaign, Nichols wrote "an epic tweetstorm arguing that conservatives should vote for Hillary Clinton, whom he detested, because Trump was "too mentally unstable" to serve as commander-in-chief.[5] [end quote]
I used Wikipedia simply because it was the most succinct.
I was curious enough to look him up:
[begin quote] Tom Nichols is a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, at the Harvard Extension School, a Sovietologist, and a five-time undefeated Jeopardy! champion.[1][2][3] He is a senior contributor at The Federalist and the author of seven books.[4] Previously he was a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, and the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.[1] He also worked for Senator John Heinz as personal staff for defense and security affairs.[1]
He was a member of the Never Trump movement and one of "the most eloquent conservative voices against President Trump."[5] During the 2016 presidential campaign, Nichols wrote "an epic tweetstorm arguing that conservatives should vote for Hillary Clinton, whom he detested, because Trump was "too mentally unstable" to serve as commander-in-chief.[5] [end quote]
I used Wikipedia simply because it was the most succinct.
(5)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
Well put, sir. Perhaps Mr. Nichols should access the library at the Naval War College and pull down a copy of Clausewitz's On War to read: "Each side can therefore gauge the other to a large extent by what he is and does, instead of judging him by what he, strictly speaking, ought to be or do." Essentially, a true military leader, or for that matter any human being, is judged by what he DID, not on what he OUGHT to do.
As such, Mr. Nichols is clearly an academic who uses, or rather abuses his scholarly credentials as a method to give veracity and legitimacy to his claims. Nevertheless, every one of his theories are just that: concepts that he conjured up in his mind, none of which he can back up with empirical evidence from his firsthand observation, much less from one who experienced the darkness of war and the battle of human wills. In war, even the best theories can change in a femto-second after that first round lands next to your head, or worse into your buddy's chest. Mr. Nichols' opinions are therefore nothing but a grouping of words that are analogous to a balloon filled with hot air, i.e. form, but no tangible substance.
As such, Mr. Nichols is clearly an academic who uses, or rather abuses his scholarly credentials as a method to give veracity and legitimacy to his claims. Nevertheless, every one of his theories are just that: concepts that he conjured up in his mind, none of which he can back up with empirical evidence from his firsthand observation, much less from one who experienced the darkness of war and the battle of human wills. In war, even the best theories can change in a femto-second after that first round lands next to your head, or worse into your buddy's chest. Mr. Nichols' opinions are therefore nothing but a grouping of words that are analogous to a balloon filled with hot air, i.e. form, but no tangible substance.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
I was hoping for some real fact-based analysis. Instead, I found lots of invective, but few facts. Example: the author's point on losing control..."First, Trump and his team lost control of events because they banned everyone but the principals and the translators from the room." Later, the author says even the Russians wanted more people in the room. This seems to me to be exactly taking control. We might disagree on what the "right" number of people in the room is, but the author makes a claim that his own account refutes. The author then goes on to make claims about the cyber security center based on...nothing at all. Why do we invite adversary officers to attend senior DoD PME, including the Naval War College? Why do we invite adversaries into major theater exercises? Why would we ever build a cyber security center with an adversary? It seems the professor has drunk his own kool-aide.
(5)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
"It seems the professor has drunk his own kool-aide."
Yep ... were it alcohol he'd be cited for an extreme case of DWI. As it is, I think we can characterize this as an OUI ... opinionating under the influence.
He's a five-time undefeated Jeopardy! champion though so that gives him some credibility in some circles. ;-)
Yep ... were it alcohol he'd be cited for an extreme case of DWI. As it is, I think we can characterize this as an OUI ... opinionating under the influence.
He's a five-time undefeated Jeopardy! champion though so that gives him some credibility in some circles. ;-)
(2)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
MSgt Steve Sweeney - Russia is a nation-state which can be counted on to take foreign policy actions that would serve its own interests best. Rational actor theory applies. It is why we let them into our war colleges and exercises and it is why they come. They learn, we learn, we get to know each other, and we come to recognize it would not serve our nation's best interests to attack the other...we would lose more than we'd gain. That's the theory, and Russia subscribes to it. ISIS is not a nation-state, has no foregn policy head, and does not rationally evaluate foreign policy options, so we can't count on them to always react in their own best interests...no rational actor theory. If you want to learn how to counter Russian strategy, read Svechin, the daddy of Russian strategy.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Since I was not there at the meeting between Trump and Putin I will take a wait and see approach to what happens.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google