Why do American Veterans cling to a candidate who openly disparages their service and sacrifices?

This week’s Trump flap over the cynical use of Arlington National Cemetery for partisan politicking came as no surprise, as it was from a champion of disrespect toward military personnel especially combat casualties. What was new was the perverse level the former president and his minions have reached, denigrating grounds that have been a sacred resting place for America’s heroes since the Civil War.

The episode arose from the anniversary of the deaths of 13 Marine Corps and Navy service members in Kabul during the chaotic departure of American forces from Afghanistan three years ago. Despite Trump’s responsibility for the withdrawal agreement with the Taliban while he was in office, he cynically blames the tragedy on the Biden-Harris Administration and made the visit, exploiting the grief of Gold Star families.

It followed a litany of outrageous comments belittling military service – something he avoided by faking medical disqualification during wartime. Most recently he denigrated the Medal of Honor calling the civilian Medal of Freedom “much better,” saying: “That’s the highest award you can get as a civilian. It’s the equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor, but civilian version, it’s actually much better, because everyone gets the Congressional Medal of Honor, they’re soldiers. They’re either in very bad shape because they’ve been hit so many times by bullets, or they’re dead.”

As with any of Trump’s jabs at military personnel no one was surprised. He has made it a habit, defying the traditional norms of high office.

Of Senator John McCain, who endured five years of captivity in North Vietnam and turned down early repatriation before his fellow POWs because his father was an Admiral, Trump said while campaigning in 2015, “He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured.” In office Trump later was outraged when flags were lowered to half-staff and by other honors accorded following McCain’s death.

When Trump backed out of a planned visit to an American military cemetery in France in 2018, he remarked to a staffer, “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.” He later referred to the 1,800 U.S. Marines killed at the sacred ground of Belleau Wood, as “suckers,” and questioned Americans fighting alongside our allies.

Trump’s callousness even extended directly to Gold Star families, as when he told a widow of a soldier killed in Niger in 2017, “he knew what he was signing up for.”

Trump’s attitude toward the service and sacrifice of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines was best summed up by his long-serving chief of staff, General John Kelly, in damning on the record remarks about the former president as: “A person that thinks those who defend their country in uniform, or are shot down or seriously wounded in combat, or spend years being tortured as POWs are all ‘suckers’ because ‘there is nothing in it for them.’ A person that did not want to be seen in the presence of military amputees because ‘it doesn’t look good for me.’ A person who demonstrated open contempt for a Gold Star family – for all Gold Star families – on TV during the 2016 campaign, and rants that our most precious heroes who gave their lives in America’s defense are ‘losers’ and wouldn’t visit their graves in France.”

On a visit to ANC’s Section 60 – resting place of America’s most recent combat casualties, including Kelly’s son – Trump said, “I don’t get it. What was in it for them?” Kelly would later say, “There is nothing more that can be said. God help us.”

During the 2016 campaign Trump disparaged Khizr and Ghazala Khan, Gold Star parents of a fallen U.S. Army Captain in Iraq, for delivering remarks about the proposed bans of Muslims entering the United States.  Of the episode Governor John Kasich said, “There’s only one way to talk about Gold Star parents: with honor and respect.”

The sanctity of military cemeteries should be important to all Americans. For me, Arlington is a much more meaningful place than to some others. I first visited at a young age, being impressed and inspired by the row upon row of gleaming heroes’ headstones. I took in the meaning of special markers like the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and the Eternal Flame at JFK’s gravesite.

Since 2001, however, it has been a place where family, shipmates and friends have been buried. Starting with a Navy buddy who was killed when Flight 77 crashed into his Pentagon office on 9/11, through others lost in brutal combat in Iraq and in Central Asia supporting the war in Afghanistan, I became a regular visitor to their graves and others.

In 2003 my father joined those honored by a place at Arlington. His was not a combat death but he earned a spot in the ANC Columbarium by virtue of a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart meted out at the hands of a Nazi mortarman in a WWII battle north of Florence. My mother joined him there in 2010 as a spouse eligible for interment with a qualified member.

Likewise, my wife was interred at Arlington last October. She is a Navy veteran but was laid to rest in ANC by virtue of my qualifying full Navy career. We will one day share a grave and marker.

Visits to Arlington National Cemetery were always serene and respectful. Every interaction with ANC staff, especially in making arrangements for an interment, were professional and courteous and showed their deep devotion to maintaining the cemetery’s high standards. And they were always clear about the cemetery’s rules.

Then came Donald Trump and his staff, intent on producing a partisan campaign event. They were told in advance about the Federal Law prohibiting use of appearances at Arlington for partisan political purposes, yet they wantonly defied the law and attempted to record video and take photographs among the heroes in Section 60. When warned by an ANC official to stop the Trump team “pushed” her aside. It was a move consistent with the Trump ethos of disregarding the rules and getting heavy handed with people in their way.

The incident was summed up by the Army, “Participants in the August 26th ceremony and the subsequent Section 60 visit were made aware of federal laws, Army regulations and DoD policies, which clearly prohibit political activities on cemetery grounds … An ANC employee who attempted to ensure adherence to these rules was abruptly pushed aside. Consistent with the decorum expected at ANC, this employee acted with professionalism and avoided further disruption. The incident was reported to the JBM-HH police department, but the employee subsequently decided not to press charges. Therefore, the Army considers this matter closed.”

Not content with the rebuke Trump and his Vice President nominee used the incident in further attacks. Senator J. D. Vance responded that because of Vice President Harris’ remarks she could, “go to hell.” Harris had made no comments about the incident.

I concluded early into his political life that Trump is a charlatan who has added: convicted felon, sexual predator, twice-impeached president, insurrectionist and wannabe dictator to his credentials. Trump and his MAGA cult are a danger to the United States well beyond the January 6^th attempt to overthrow the rule of law at the Capitol.

What troubles me is the failure of too many patriotic veterans to share the outrage that should be on the lips of all who served. We all raised our right hands and took the oath to defend the U.S. Constitution. Trump has said it should be set aside to secure his election.

What is it that has entrapped many of my fellow service men and women in the fascist cult of Trump? What is the allure of this con man who is clearly unfit to lead the nation. The same question should be asked about the general public who are in his thrall. But Trump’s open, unrepentant, repugnant commentary on veterans – living and dead – should be cause for reflection and rejection from the community of American Veterans.

Pat Ryan served 26 years in the U.S. Navy. “There and Here” is a column where he shares occasional analysis and commentary on international affairs and reflections on American issues.

Fact check: Donald Trump did call John McCain a loser

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/09/08/president-donald-trump-john-mccain-loser-fact-check/5741070002

Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/trump-americans-who-died-at-war-are-losers-and-suckers/615997

Exclusive: John Kelly goes on the record to confirm several disturbing stories about Trump

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/02/politics/john-kelly-donald-trump-us-service-members-veterans/index.html

John Kelly Visited His Son’s Grave With President Trump on Memorial Day

https://time.com/5293727/john-kelly-visits-sons-grave-arlington-national-cemetary

Army says Arlington National Cemetery worker was ‘pushed aside’ by Trump aides

https://www.npr.org/2024/08/29/nx-s1-5092087/trump-arlington-cemetery-altercation-video

Why Are Military Personnel and Veterans Supporting Trump (American Issues Take One)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj_7TICppuk

Donald Trump Criticizes Muslim Family of Slain U.S. Soldier, Drawing Ire

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/us/politics/donald-trump-khizr-khan-wife-ghazala.html

By Patrick Ryan

Game changing technologies both advance and threaten mankind, and require controls.

This summer’s blockbuster biopic “Oppenheimer” awakened a new interest in the dangers and promise of nuclear technology and, by extension, the double-edged sword of advanced technologies. Christopher Nolan’s opus chronicled J. Robert Oppenheimer’s work as a theoretical physicist who headed the nuclear laboratory at Los Alamos as America raced to beat Germany to build an atomic bomb.

The first bomb test at a site called Trinity in the New Mexico desert was the film’s dramatic turning point for Oppenheimer. While his scientific pursuits were fulfilled, the destructive power of the atomic bomb led to misgivings about the consequences for mankind. Although Oppenheimer helped the military plan the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, he began to question the ability for control of weapons of such destructive power. Oppenheimer and some of his fellow atomic scientists argued for international governance of nuclear power and he openly opposed development of much more power hydrogen weapons.

“Oppenheimer,” the movie, continues with his travails. Despite worldwide celebrity as “father of the atomic bomb,” his political positions ran afoul of the government. The result was revocation of his security clearance and exile from the active community of nuclear scientists.

What about “Oppenheimer,” a three-hour journey through the struggles and accomplishments of a scientist many Americans knew little about, caused such a stir among movie-goers? Dr. Rachel Bronson, president and CEO of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the “Doomsday Clock” people, spoke at a recent Tennessee World Affairs Council Webinar, “…the movie is having such resonance because of how fraught the nuclear landscape is today … it’s tapping into the zeitgeist.” She pointed to developments like Russia’s naked threats to use nuclear weapons to resolve the quagmire it’s found in the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. “This isn’t your father’s nuclear landscape,” she said, adding, “Major powers are shredding our arms control architectures … it is very similar to the moment that Oppenheimer and his colleagues were operating.”

If we’ve reached a new “Oppenheimer moment,” as Alexander Karp argued last month in the New York Times when discussing AI, then it’s time to examine the technologies like nuclear power that can be dangers to humanity while at the same time offer incredible advancements for society. As Oppenheimer said in 1947, “You argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success.”

We know the potential for nuclear weapons to end civilization and nuclear technology to provide life-saving medical applications and fossil-fuel free energy. There are other technologies that are both game changers for society and existential threats to humanity. Some have been with us for years; others are relatively new.

Biomedical technologies have been a godsend for human healthcare and disease treatment. Yet, a single virus spread to three quarters of a billion people, killing almost seven million worldwide and over a million in the United States. Did SARS-CoV-2, which gave us Covid-19, start in the wild or in a laboratory? No one who knows for sure is saying. What future existential threats will come from test tubes?

Generative AI is the recent technology to join this category. There’s promise for advancements in education, medicine, manufacturing, art and much more. But there’s also alarm bells being sounded. Last fall’s debut of ChatGPT introduced the world to the power of AI. Since then, a one-sentence statement from 350 AI experts, including senior officials at the top three AI companies, shocked the public this spring, “Mitigating the risk of extinction from A.I. should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks, such as pandemics and nuclear war.” “Extinction,” from a technology that students are using to produce faux term papers?

The control of these technologies – nuclear, AI and biomedical — falls among public, private and a combination of the two sectors. And they span the international community, many members not likely to agree on the responsible architectures like those Oppenheimer pursued.

What does all this doomsaying mean for us citizens? Dr. Bronson at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which was founded by Oppenheimer and his colleagues, says their purpose is to educate the public about these paramount issues, “We were founded on the belief the public is important to democratic discourse and [should] pressure our political leaders to do the right thing.”

That’s a good first step. Open the conversation at the grassroots level so our communities are informed and involved. That was the point of the TNWAC Webinar with Dr. Bronson [access at TNWAC.org] who said, “The dangers of these technologies insist that we stay focused because it’s too dangerous for us to throw our hands up and say, well, the time isn’t right.” We have reached our “Oppenheimer moment.”

Online: Feb 18, 2021

Print: Feb 21, 2021

https://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/2021/02/17/iran-nuclear-deal-clock-ticking-u-s-and-allies/6764700002/

The Clock is Ticking on a Nuclear Deal with Iran | Opinion

Patrick Ryan and Kelsey Davenport

Guest Columnists

• Lt. Cmdr. Patrick W. Ryan, USN(Retired) is founding president of the Tennessee World Affairs Council.
• Kelsey Davenport is the Director of Nonproliferation Policy at the Arms Control Association

The roller coaster ride that is the United States’ relationship with Iran picked up speed in 2021. The January anniversary of a deadly U.S. drone attack on General Qassem Soleimani brought thousands to the streets in Iran. The killing of the chief of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, responsible for militancy abroad, brought threats of reprisals.

Washington responded, positioning an aircraft carrier and a Tomahawk missile laden submarine near Iran and a B-52 deterrent fly-by. The anniversary passed without incident.

Overlaying the threat of military action is the prospect of Iran continuing nuclear activities beyond the multilateral 2015 nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA. President Biden has an opportunity to restore limits on Iran’s nuclear program and head off an escalatory spiral of tensions that increases the risk of conflict, but time is short. 

Recall the permanent five UN Security Council members — the U.S., UK, France, China, Russia – plus Germany and the European Union agreed with Iran to relax sanctions in exchange for reductions and restraints on nuclear fuel production and acceptance of thorough international inspections. The agreement affirmed that “under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire nuclear weapons.” More than two years of full implementation of the nuclear deal demonstrated its effectiveness and verifiability. 

President Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in May 2018—despite Iran’s compliance with the accord—promising a better deal and scrapping a signature foreign policy achievement of Obama. U.S. policy, quarterbacked by Secretary of State Pompeo, replaced the nuclear agreement which had enjoyed Iranian compliance at that point, with a campaign of “Maximum Pressure.” Pompeo laid out a 12-point list of demands to be met before a return to negotiations. It failed.  

Iran responded with “Maximum Resistance,” withstanding the effects of stringent sanctions and striking back with attacks on Gulf shipping and regional oil production facilities. Iran also resumed more troubling nuclear activities limited by the 2015 agreement.  

The tit-for-tat provocations included the November assassination of Iran’s top nuclear scientist, widely believed to be an operation mounted by Israel with an American wink. Iran’s parliament responded by announcing plans to ratchet up its nuclear program, including increasing uranium enrichment levels in January, and a February 23, 2021 deadline for concessions or the government would be required to limit UN inspectors’ access to nuclear facilities.

President Biden pledged to return the U.S. to the JCPOA but the new Administration is calling for Iran to resume full compliance first. Moreover, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the goal of U.S. policy toward Iran was to restore the JCPOA and then build on it, using diplomacy to reduce Iranian malevolent activities in the region and place limits on ballistic missiles. 

While Iran supports a return to full implementation of the nuclear deal by all parties, President Hassan Rouhani has called for American actions first, since Washington was the party that left the JCPOA. He says Tehran has no appetite for negotiations until the agreement is restored. 

Sequencing a U.S. and Iranian mutual return to the JCPOA will be challenge, but it is in the best interest of the United States for the Biden administration to act quickly.

Iran’s uranium enrichment in excess of the deal’s limits could be quickly undone but the steps coming pose a more significant risk and are more difficult to reverse. Iran is stopping short of expelling international inspectors but any limits on their access will fuel speculation it’s engaged in illicit activities.

Biden’s room for diplomacy is further constrained by the calendar. Iranian observance of Nowruz, the Persian New Year, will shut down most activities in the country for two weeks starting on March 20^th. It will be followed by a campaign period leading to the June 18^th presidential election. Term-limited President Hassan Rouhani presided over the JCPOA signing and hardliners could capitalize on a failure of the agreement.

Biden recognizes the ultimate objective of preventing Iran assembling the fissile material necessary to build a nuclear weapon and recognizes challenges to an agreement. The White House convened National Security Council meeting this month to review and sharpen the strategy moving forward.

Based on our years of specializing in research and analysis of proliferation of WMD systems especially the case of Iran’s nuclear program, we share the sense of urgency attached to quick return of the United States to the JCPOA. 

In announcing the agreement in 2015, President Obama said, “It contains the most comprehensive inspection and verification regime ever negotiated to monitor a nuclear program.” He said it achieves one of our most critical security objectives—verifiably blocking Iran’s pathways to a nuclear deal.  As such, it is a very good deal.

The preeminent goal is stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and the surest path to that goal is for the United States to rejoin the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action at the earliest opportunity. The clock is ticking.

Kelsey Davenport is Director of Nonproliferation Policy at the Arms Control Association, a national nonpartisan organization dedicated to promoting public understanding of and support for effective arms control policies. 

Lt. Cmdr. Patrick W. Ryan, USN (Retired) is founding president of the Tennessee World Affairs Council. He served 26-years in the Navy as a Submariner and Intelligence Officer and has extensive experience in analysis of Iranian military-political issues and weapons of mass destruction. These are his opinions.

Davenport and Ryan will talk about the Iranian “nuclear deal” at a Zoom Global Town Hall hosted by the Tennessee World Affairs Council, Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 5:30pm CT. Details/registration at TNWAC.org.

“The Tennessean”

January 6, 2020

Iran remains no match for America’s economic and military power, but it does have the capacity for much more than mischief making.

Patrick W. Ryan

Guest columnist

• Patrick W. Ryan is founding president of the Tennessee World Affairs Council.

The U.S. drone strike killing of murderous Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani on a dusty road near the Baghdad airport on Jan. 2 and the resulting furor and counter strike by the armed forces of Iran are not a new chapter in a recent book but a new volume in the compendium of conflict with the Islamic Republic of Iran spanning decades.

The opening of the seventh decade of lukewarm war with Iran has no perfect analog but does have a “The Guns of August” feel to it. Historian Barbara W. Tuchman expertly set the scene in that book for the “War to End All Wars.”

It’s beyond imagination that a looming war with Iran would approach the magnitude of death and destruction of World War I. We do, however, see two sides that, while professing no desire for high-intensity war, are both recklessly stumbling toward a hot war of immense proportions.

While he was no Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Soleimani was a cult figure in Iran, the most senior official in Tehran’s national security apparatus. If a new war with Iran comes, it will be his killing that will be recorded as the proximate fuse that was lit. 

Indeed, the Iranian representative to the United Nations told CNN on Jan. 3, “In fact it was an act of war on the part of the United States against the Iranian people.” He promised “harsh revenge.” The missile volley launched Tuesday night was not yet it.

‘The Great Satan’ and the ‘axis of evil’

It wasn’t always that way. As a young sailor assigned in the 1970s to the Navy’s flagship in the Gulf, I recall working closely with Iranian forces under the CENTO (Central Treaty Organization) military pact, an alliance akin to NATO, designed to deter Soviet designs on the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean. That pact and our relationship was destroyed by the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran and the rise of a regime hostile to the West, generally, and to the United States, specifically. America became the “Great Satan” in Tehran; Iran was part of an “axis of evil” in Washington. 

The convulsion on the Middle East landscape that was the Iranian revolution was followed by decades of political, economic and military conflict, the later through both Tehran-backed proxies and military engagements. Such was the 1980s tanker war in the shadow of the catastrophic Iran-Iraq war that claimed over a million casualties — in case you doubt Iranian capacity for wartime suffering. 

Iran does not back down

At one point in the tanker war, a campaign I witnessed from the bridge of a cruiser in the Gulf, the U.S. retaliated over Iran’s placement of sea mines that damaged an American frigate by destroying a number of Iranian offshore oil platforms. Iran dispatched warships to respond, but they were outgunned in what was the largest naval engagement for the U.S. Navy since World War II.

Five Iranian vessels were sunk and others damaged. Few Americans are familiar with this battle. A takeaway from the engagement for Iran was the need to develop tactics to take on the U.S. Navy; for the U.S. it should have been that Iran does not back down. 

The relationship is littered with more belligerency: American hostage-taking in Lebanon by Iran’s proxy, Hezbollah; the provision of deadly munitions in direct support of insurgents battling Americans in Iraq; and more. I was the intelligence officer overseeing terrorism analyses in the U.S. Central Command headquarters when a U.S. Air Force dormitory in Saudi Arabia was truck-bombed, killing 19 servicemen and wounding 500 others. Iran was culpable in the attack. There is no question we have unsettled scores with Tehran. 

So, the 2020s open with the scene set for a hot war with Iran of yet undefined parameters. Iran certainly remains no match for America’s economic and military power but it does have the capacity for much more than mischief making. Tehran’s vow to shed American blood is no empty threat notwithstanding the barrage of Iranian missiles – widely thought to be aimed to miss.

Troubles at home

As the winds of war strengthen in the Gulf, at home we have troubles of our own making. A 2015 deal with Tehran – along with Russia, China and European partners – to stanch nuclear weapons development was trashed by Trump.  It was replaced with a campaign of “maximum pressure” that some say is designed to precipitate regime change in Iran. It was met with Iran’s campaign of “maximum resistance” and a cycle of escalation that brought us to the edge of an abyss of catastrophic potential.

The past week of strike, counter strike is not the end of it. Iran has acted boldly by attacking U.S. bases in Iraq, but not provocatively enough to bring an immediate American attack. Despite President Trump’s tweet “All is well!” in response, all is not well. Maximum pressure and maximum resistance continue. It will be only days or weeks before an attack, probably non-conventional and lacking Persian fingerprints, has us back at the brink of war.

Meanwhile there is uncertainty about our national security apparatus. We have a mendacious commander in chief who is unsettling in his approach to foreign policy, his relationship with his own Intelligence Community and Diplomatic Corps, his inability to consult and work with Congress and his obsession with blaming his failures on his predecessor.

The impending historic Senate trial of President Trump is an immeasurable complication to clear headed decision making and invites suspicions as to the president’s motives. There are questions about the veracity of the “imminent threat” warning that brought the escalation, the role of Congress in making war and the ability of our leaders to adhere to international law and the laws of war.

So, what to do? Our tortuous history with Iran and the recklessness of this administration has given us a “guns of January” moment. 

Too many of us, unfortunately, do not appreciate or care to investigate the background and context of the complexities that have us poised to spend more American blood and treasure on another Middle East war. I challenge you to get smart. You have a vote coming up. 

Lt. Commander Patrick W. Ryan, U.S. Navy (retired), served as a submariner and intelligence officer during a 26-year U.S. Navy career. He published newsletters on Persian Gulf affairs for 15 years. He is founding president of the Tennessee World Affairs Council, a nonpartisan educational organization dedicated to increasing global affairs awareness in the community (www.TNWAC.org). These views are his own. 

https://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/2020/01/06/voters-must-educate-themselves-complex-history-us-and-iran/2826255001/

Repairing the Fraying Social Fabric through Transatlantic Cooperation
Patrick W. Ryan, Dr. Nina Smidt, and Dr. Steven E. Sokol

• Patrick W. Ryan is the president and founder of the Tennessee World Affairs Council.
• Dr. Nina Smidt directs international strategic planning at ZEIT-Stiftung Ebelin und Gerd Bucerius.
• Dr. Steven E. Sokol serves as president of the American Council on Germany in New York.

In a period of increased polarization in domestic politics, fragmentation of society, and social inequity, efforts to adapt and grow to meet the complex 21st century challenges of globalization and technological change should begin at the local level. Germany and the United States face many of the same domestic challenges, and local communities in both countries can learn from each other’s innovative approaches to these issues.

Today, most Americans and Germans enjoy an unprecedented standard of living. Nevertheless, many people in both countries believe something is wrong – regardless of income level. Many Germans and Americans feel left behind even though economic indicators in both countries are generally positive. This impression is having a serious impact on our societies and cannot simply be reduced to economic angst. There is a sense that our social fabric is fraying, our social market-based economic systems are failing, and our societies are changing so rapidly that people cannot keep pace.

In both countries one can observe greater distrust of institutions — churches, the media, unions, political parties, and government agencies — increased segregation of communities based on income levels, deeper divisions between ethnic groups, more polarization between urban and rural areas, and less dialogue between people of differing political beliefs. This comes at a time when some are trapped in information echo chambers they have created themselves.

Various trends contribute to this sense of anxiety about the future: 1) global migration leads to demographic diversity and change; 2) globalization creates more economic opportunities, but also greater inequality; 3) the Internet gives people more choices about how to get information and which issues they want to follow; and 4) a growing culture of autonomy deepens individual choice and self-determination vs. a concern for society at large.

Nashville and Germany have already found local solutions that make a difference. For example, in Nashville “The Tennessean” Editorial Board has launched the “Civility Tennessee” campaign practicing, promoting and encouraging civil discourse in the community. In one German city, Cologne, elected officials and community representatives established an “integration council” to enhance dialogue, develop strategies, and to find approaches to strengthen the cohesiveness of the community.

To confront the challenges posed by economic globalization, a greater focus needs to be put on workforce development opportunities that provide individuals with the skills needed for 21st-century jobs. Germany’s apprenticeship model – a collaborative approach between schools, unions, and employers – provides highly skilled training to 50 percent of German youth. German companies in Tennessee are especially strong in the automotive and manufacturing industries, as evidenced by Volkswagen’s Chattanooga assembly plant employing 2,000 people and drawing additional suppliers to the region. And, Volkswagen has brought its workforce training programs to the state, which helps give Tennesseans the skills they need to thrive. Such programs often grow out of public-private-partnerships. For example, in 2016 the State Funding Board approved $600,000 in FastTrack Job Training funds for one of VW’s suppliers to train new employees.

In both countries, there is a recognition that the younger generation should be better informed about issues impacting their communities and more engaged in civic life for the benefit of society in general. In Tennessee, the World Affairs Council builds civic and global awareness through its educational outreach programs. Organizations like Think Tennessee also build civic involvement through innovative programs that empower and encourage citizen engagement. And in the German state of Baden-Württemberg, the “Youth Moves” program helps communities actively engage youth in their decision-making processes.

Another effort bringing attention to these issues and fostering solutions is a panel discussion titled, “Social Disruption: How to Confront the Fraying Social Fabric and Social Inequality in Germany and the U.S.?” on May 23rd at Belmont University. Former Nashville Mayor Karl Dean will lead a conversation with Dr. Deborah Fallows and James Fallows, co-authors of “Our Towns: A 100,000 Mile Journey into the Heart of America,” and German journalist Martin Klingst. Together, they will identify some of the common challenges facing communities in the United States and Europe and explore some of the steps that can be taken to improve the social fabric in this volatile period.

By taking action at the local level, community members can demonstrate how our civic culture can be revitalized, the social fabric strengthened, and today’s economic realities more effectively addressed. They also show how much Germany and the United States can gain from exchanging ideas – if we look to the future with common purpose, hope, and aspiration.

Patrick W. Ryan is the President and Founder of the Tennessee World Affairs Council. Dr. Nina Smidt directs international strategic planning at ZEIT-Stiftung Ebelin und Gerd Bucerius in Hamburg. Dr. Steven E. Sokol serves as President of the American Council on Germany in New York.

No Room for Hate | Tennessean | Opinion

Patrick W. Ryan, Guest Columnist

Hatred and bigotry have no room in our society and here’s what we can do about it.

There is no shortage of heart wrenching natural and man-made disasters, conflicts and human suffering every day around the world. But the brutality of the mass murders carried out on March 15th by a self-described white supremacist at the Al Noor and Linwood mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand is nearly incomprehensible. Fifty Muslim faithful at prayer were ruthlessly killed in their houses of worship and fifty more were wounded. A community and country known for its peacefulness was left to recover from a tragedy as sudden and sweeping as the earthquake that rocked that city in 2011. Christchurch resident Eleanor Morgan told a reporter, “It should have been their haven, their safe place.”

Such a horrendous act rightly has shaken people beyond those in New Zealand and those in the Muslim community. While it is shocking, it is unfortunately not surprising. We live in a time when violence is too often delivered upon people simply because of their differences. 

Hatred of the “other” is commonplace and those who would act on it are on the rise and given license by voices of bigotry. 

Hatred of the “other” is a product of resentment and ignorance. We cannot be silent in its face. Silence is affirmation.

It is clear this is not simply a domestic issue or not simply an issue “over there.” Hate groups are growing – 36 in Tennessee in 2018 according to the SPLC – and their transnational nature is increasing. Hate speech and behavior on one side of the world can produce hate crimes on the other side. 

Individual hate-fueled violent acts in the United States are on the rise. The FBI reported a 17 percent increase in 2017 over 2016, with 7,100 hate crimes noted. Responding is the responsibility of every level of society and we must reject leaders who are ambivalent to these threats.

A Nashville vigil was held March 17th to break the silence and to express condolences and solidarity with the victims of the Christchurch mosques attacks and those affected by the heinous crimes. Ossama Bahloul of Nashville’s Muslim community said, “We are in this together,” according to “The Tennessean.” Congressman Jim Cooper said, “There is no room for hate in Nashville, Tennessee.”

Bahloul added, “Racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are all equally forms of hatred. They are branches of the same tree. You can cut or trim back any branch, but it will regrow unless the entire tree is chopped down. Destroying hatred does not require violence, instead it requires goodness.”

And it requires education.

Educate yourself, your children, your family and your friends. Reject rhetoric and behaviors that seek to isolate and vilify the “other.” Look for ways to connect members of your “tribe” to other “tribes.” Be a role model for tolerance. 

You can learn more in “Ten Ways to Fight Hate: A Community Response Guide,” published by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLCenter.org). The Anti-Defamation League (ADL.org) is another source for actions you can take. Support organizations like these that fight hatred and bigotry. They depend on you.

For our part your World Affairs Council will redouble our work to build bridges and international understanding and, by extension, understanding of the “other,” whether around the world or in our neighborhood. We invite you to become part of these conversations.

We are not powerless. There is no room for hate. 

Patrick W. Ryan is founder and President of the Tennessee World Affairs Council, a nonprofit, nonpartisan education organization that works to provide global literacy programs to the community. These are his views.

The Doomsday Clock is ticking. How can we turn it back? | Opinion

Joseph Cirincione and Patrick W. Ryan, Guest Columnists

The world is in a precarious place when it comes to the possibility of nuclear disaster. Trump foreign policy offers much bluster but few real gains.

• Joseph Cirincione is president of Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation.
• Patrick W. Ryan is founding president of the Tennessee World Affairs Council.

In 2018, the “Doomsday Clock,” the expression of how close we are to “destroying our world with dangerous technologies of our own making,” advanced to two minutes to midnight.

Last month the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, keepers of the clock, reaffirmed that precarious position, noting the world’s security situation was a “new abnormal.”

Based on decades of experience between us in defense policymaking and assessments, and military duties in operational nuclear armed forces, we share the Bulletin’s alarm especially in two cases: Iran and North Korea.

Despite promises of a better deal, none is in sight

In the years after the invasion of Iraq, we began to see headlines asking, “Will America attack Iran?” Fortunately, sober decisionmakers saw virtue in diplomacy and President George W. Bush eventually chose to back European-led talks, not bombing raids.

The Obama Administration, alongside international partners reached an agreement with Iran in 2015, affirming that “under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire nuclear weapons.” It rolled back Iran’s nuclear program to a fraction of its former size, largely froze it for at least 15 years and put it under a vigorous UN inspection regime. We and our European allies promised sanctions relief in exchange.

Last year, President Donald Trump broke this anti-nuclear accord, saying he sought a “better deal” than Obama’s. The agreement is still honored by the other parties, while no White House deal-making is in sight. That created resentment among allies and raised the fear that Iran could also pull out, reject inspectors and restart its nuclear activities.

Iran’s stoking of conflicts elsewhere in the Middle East requires countermeasures but forsaking the deal’s benefits – blocking an Iranian nuclear weapon – was irresponsible. Trump replaced it with unrealistic regime-change threats, risks of a new war and prospects for a nuclear arms race across the Middle East.

In Trump’s first year in office, North Korea for the first time tested a hydrogen bomb and long-range missile that could carry that weapon to American soil. Trump responded by threatening “fire and the fury like the world has never seen.” Pyongyang continued testing; Trump told the UN the U.S. “will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea” to defend itself.

An opening appeared with North-South Korean cooperation at the 2018 Winter Olympic games. In a frenzy of diplomatic activity, a history-making Trump-Kim summit was hastily announced, leaving regional allies with a case of whiplash.

The Singapore summit produced an agreement where North Korea promised to move towards denuclearization and the United States promised new security guarantees.

However, after the Singapore klieg lights went out the process faltered. Kim Jung-un, a brutal dictator, acquired new stature as a statesman at the same time he continued building missiles and nuclear weapons.

In late February, likely in Vietnam, Trump and Kim will again sit down. There is the chance for a compromise interim agreement before proceeding step by step to see if Kim is willing to relinquish his full program in exchange for a new security relationship with America.

Three observations on White House foreign policy

What do these cases show?

First, American policy should be to change regime behavior, not wage war. We don’t want the world again asking, “Will America attack Iran?”

Second, haphazard diplomacy, as in the case of North Korea, does not serve our nation well. Showy summits lacking substantial consultations of national security experts shouldn’t be organized at a whim. Our regional allies, Japan and South Korea, should be full partners in the process.

Lastly, given Trump’s precarious domestic position, his flamboyant, incoherent diplomacy shakes the confidence of our friends and could trigger pre-emptive action by our foes who fear he may attack simply to distract.

Sound policy and wise leadership, not wars – real or Twitter – are key to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. We must turn back the “Doomsday Clock.”

Joseph Cirincione is president of Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation. Cirincione will speak on “The Policy and Politics of U.S. Nuclear Strategy” at a Global Town Hall for the community, hosted by the Tennessee World Affairs Council at Belmont University, Monday, Feb. 11, 2019 at 6 p.m. Details/registration at TNWAC.org.

Lt. Cmdr. Patrick W. Ryan, U.S. Navy (Retired), served 26-years in the Navy as a Submariner and Intelligence Officer and has extensive service in connection with nuclear weapons security, deployment and command and control. He is founder and President of the Tennessee World Affairs Council, a nonprofit, nonpartisan education organization that works to provide global literacy programs to the community. These are his views.

Understanding America’s nerve-racking foreign policy

You could be excused for feeling as if you have whiplash when trying to keep up with global developments these days.

There’s a seemingly never-ending parade of crises and concerns – virtual global car wrecks – that come at us every time we turn on the news.

The breadth and depth of foreign policy challenges requires a score card to keep up with – North Korea nukes and missiles, Russian aggression, Chinese economic muscleflexing, setbacks for democratic rule, and a dozen flashpoints in the Middle East among them Syria, Iran and Yemen – all threatening American security, prosperity and interests.

It is tempting to say America’s place in the world has never been in as much danger as it is now, but that would be overlooking how our country navigated dangerous waters across the globe in the past.

And this former military intelligence officer who surveyed Cold War and Middle East threats over a 26year career could make a case that what we face now is nothing new.

What is new is the state of our government’s ability to deal effectively, efficiently, coherently and multilaterally with the global challenges on our plate. At no time in my lifetime has there been a national security team – in particular the White House and the State Department – that has been less prepared and organized.

The concern goes beyond partisan policy disagreements.

In just over one year America has had three National Security Advisors – the most recent one could not earn Senate confirmation from his own party for the U.N. ambassador job — and two secretaries of State including the ignominious dismissal by tweet of Rex Tillerson.

On the diplomatic front, an inexplicable shakeup at the State Department – axing career professionals, time-tested structures and already thread-bare budgets; unfilled ambassadorships in 66 of 188 posts; cutting 1,982 Foreign Service and Civil Service positions.

We should be reminded that in 2013 future Defense Secretary James Mattis famously warned against cutting America’s diplomatic capability, saying “If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.”

Ambassador Barbara Stephenson, American Foreign Service Association President, looked to the National Security Strategy when she said, “’We must upgrade diplomatic capability’ to cope with escalating threats,” So it’s hard to argue that cutting diplomacy is about achieving our strategy goals.

However, the “America First” platitude says to partisans that the United States position in the world is not compatible with America as a great nation. That flies in the face of the facts.

American leadership after World War II built the most prosperous and secure nation in history and that status remains reliant on international trade, multilateral cooperation and all the tools of “soft power” – principal among them American diplomacy.

If we believe the buck stops in the Oval Office then responsible citizens must ask what is going on at the top.

Professionals and observers alike have been bewildered to see policymaking by pique and tweet, by positions changing on a dime, by lack of coherent strategy and doctrine, and by – at the most generous interpretation – a mysterious “bromance” between President Trump and our principal global adversary, Russian President Vladimir Putin.

So how to sort through the problems besetting our global position and diplomatic clout?

There may be less whiplash in absorbing our daily news feeds with more context, background and solid facts on U.S. foreign policy.

Patrick W. Ryan, U.S. Navy, retired after 26 years as a submariner and Navy Intelligence Officer. He is founder and President of the Tennessee World Affairs Council, a nonprofit, nonpartisan education organization that works to provide global literacy programs to the community. These are his views.

Published May 17, 2017

Al-Arabiya

Guest Columnist

• Patrick W. Ryan is a Nashville, Tennessee based international affairs analyst. He was a career US Navy officer with extensive Middle East experience and he has published newsletters on Gulf Affairs since 1999

Donald J. Trump has established himself as a President of the United States who is not bound by tradition or precedent and his choice for his first international travel destination is consistent with that inclination. While the last five American presidents chose Mexico or Canada for their inaugural trips abroad Trump picked Saudi Arabia as his first foreign stop. 

The symbolism of Saudi Arabia as the first country Trump is visiting was intentional, according to a senior White House official who briefed the press, “The reason why we chose the Saudis first is because they are the custodians of the two Holy Mosques.” The official noted, “We thought that was very important because obviously people have tried to portray the president in a certain way, but I think that what he wants to do is solve the same problem that a lot of the leaders in the Islamic world want to do.”

The trip is called historic by the White House as Trump will be the first president to visit the homelands and holy sites of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths on one trip.  He will travel to Israel, the Vatican, Belgium and Sicily for the G-7 Summit following the two-day Riyadh visit.

In Saudi Arabia Trump is set for meetings with King Salman and senior Saudi officials where he will sign economic and political agreements and bilateral and multilateral meetings with other Gulf Cooperation Council leaders. 

Trump will meet with more than 50 leaders from Muslim countries in what is called the Arab-Islamic-American Summit.  Discussions will include combating terrorism, boosting commercial relations, youth and technology, according to Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Jubeir. 

Trump’s National Security Advisor General H.R. McMaster said Trump seeks to encourage Arab and Muslim partners “to take bold, new steps to promote peace and to confront those, from ISIS to al Qaeda to Iran to the Assad regime, who perpetuate chaos and violence that has inflicted so much suffering throughout the Muslim world and beyond.”

Trump will deliver a speech on Islam described by McMaster as “inspiring yet direct” to the Islamic world, a “respectful message that the United States and the entire civilized world expects [America’s] Muslim allies to take a strong stand against radical Islamist ideology.” 

An American president addressing the Islamic world is reminiscent of President Barack Obama’s June 2009 speech in Cairo dubbed “A New Beginning.” That title could well be what Saudi officials are looking for as the latter years of the Obama Administration saw a strain in relations between Washington and Riyadh over the Iran nuclear deal and engagement with Tehran, and U.S. policy in the Middle East especially the ouster of President Mubarak in Egypt and inaction over President Assad in Syria.

The distinction between Trump and Obama may not be all that sharp when it comes to the nuclear deal after all. During the 2016 presidential campaign Trump said his “number-one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran” but this week his Administration waived sanctions on Iran consistent with the nuclear arrangement signaling acceptance of the agreement.  

There was no difference with Obama on the Iran deal once he took office, said Colonel David DesRoches, an Associate Professor at the National Defense University in Washington and a specialist on US-Saudi relations. He told the Global Dispatches Podcast, “The same policy is being pursued from two ideological perspectives so you can see there probably aren’t any good alternatives out there.”

Nevertheless, Trump will find a warm welcome in Riyadh from leaders who see a new chapter in US-Saudi relations according to the Foreign Minister, “This administration has vision that matches the view of the kingdom with regards to the role of America in the world, with regards to getting rid of terrorism, with regards to confronting Iran, with regards to rebuilding relations with traditional allies, with regards to trade and investment.”

Looming in the background of the visit are Trump’s penchant for improvisation and off-script gaffes.  More troublesome are the domestic political woes that include his recent dismissal of FBI Director James Comey, his disclosure of sensitive intelligence material to the Russian Foreign Minister and the naming of a special prosecutor to investigate ties between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. 

Trump’s Saudi hosts will not let Trump’s political troubles interfere with their effort to open a new chapter with Washington. NDU’s DesRoches said the political troubles are an inside Washington story as far as Saudi officials were concerned. He said, “Unless you start to see the Trump Administration really ‘taking on water’ they’re going to deal with him as President of the United States and as a president whose policy pronouncements they’re generally in favor of.”

Patrick W. Ryan is a Nashville, Tennessee based international affairs analyst.  He was a career US Navy officer with extensive Middle East experience and he has published newsletters on Gulf Affairs since 1999.

https://english.alarabiya.net/en/features/2017/05/19/Analysis-Why-Trump-s-trip-to-Riyadh-will-mark-a-new-chapter-

In Beijing he will meet Chinese officials, sign cooperation memoranda and perform other state duties. In Tokyo he will meet Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the defense minister and other Japanese officials, and have a ceremonial audience with the emperor. Were it not for the bright spotlight on the G-20 summit and the weight of Chinese commercial ties, Tokyo could have been a major destination all on its own.

Just two years ago, King Salman – who was crown prince at the time – was in Japan for a full week of meetings with Abe, who said: “Over the next hundred years, we are determined to build a new era of relations with Saudi Arabia.”

On that trip, which included Prince Mohammed in the delegation, the future King Salman and Abe signed numerous commercial protocols and agreements to accelerate civil nuclear and security cooperation. This followed Abe’s visit to Saudi Arabia in 2013 for meetings with senior officials, which led to the “Joint Statement on the Strengthening of the Comprehensive Partnership between Japan and Saudi Arabia.”

The statement included both sides’ “deep satisfaction with the significant development in their bilateral relations in the political, economic and cultural fields, and expressed their intention to strengthen the comprehensive partnership… in every field.”

Beyond oil

It also noted the 2015 celebration of the 60th anniversary of Japanese-Saudi diplomatic ties – outreaching Saudi-Chinese relations by 35 years – as another touch point suggesting cooperation beyond the oil trade. When Abe was in Riyadh in 2007, he said: “One of the aims of my visit is to establish multilayer economic relations that go beyond traditional economic relations that focus on oil.”

It is difficult to set aside the importance of the energy relationship. After all, Japan relies on Saudi Arabia for a third of its crude oil imports. However, the Riyadh-Tokyo connection has emphasized a larger set of interests. At the time of the 2007 visit, then-Saudi Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz said he agreed with Abe that bilateral relations “should be multilayered.”

This tradition of looking to bilateral relations beyond oil will augur well for Prince Mohammed. He has intended to use his Vision 2030 tour, which has included the US and France, to cultivate international components of his blueprint to transform the kingdom.

He is still enjoying something of a honeymoon period following his rise to powerful positions when his father ascended to the throne in early 2015, especially as head of the Economic and Development Affairs Council.

In that capacity, Prince Mohammed spearheaded development of a dramatic plan, Vision 2030, to transform Saudi Arabia into a “global investment powerhouse” not “dependent solely on oil,” and taking advantage of the younger generation’s potential. In the April 2016 launch, he called for transforming the Public Investment Fund into the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, emphasizing diversification and encouraging private sector commercial expansion.

The two sides will sit down in Tokyo this week to discuss their ties and prospects going forward. They will be guided by the history of bilateral ties that searched for areas of cooperation beyond energy. They will also be crafting cooperation to fit the imperative of transformation that is top of the agenda of the kingdom’s chief economic officer.

As it was with his visits to other global leaders, Prince Mohammed will likely spend time in Tokyo building support for measures – trade, investment, tech transfer and more – among friends who share an interest in the success of the Saudi reform program, and the young man who is its architect and principal advocate.

________________________

Patrick Ryan is an analyst, commentator, publisher and consultant on international affairs. He has lived and worked in the Gulf at various times since the 1970s during his 26-year career as a US Navy officer and later an independent writer. He has been publisher and editor of the SUSRIS.com project chronicling Saudi-US relations since 2003. He regularly contributes to international media on Gulf affairs and he is based in Nashville, Tennessee. He tweets @PatRyanReport and can be contacted at PatRyan@PatRyanAssociates.com