Insights, analysis and must reads from CNN's Fareed Zakaria and the Global Public Square team, compiled by Global Briefing editor Jason Miks.

April 5, 2018

We Need to Start Talking About Mattis: Hurlburt

Reports that Trump "grew irritated" with his national security team during a meeting Tuesday, when they warned against an immediate withdrawal from Syria, could be another sign of policy discord between the President and Defense Secretary James Mattis. Heather Hurlburt suggests in New York Magazine that this raises a troubling question: Are his days in the job numbered?

"Of course, American history is full of conflict between presidents and their military advisers. But what you don't find in our history, or in the 71 years since the creation of the Department of Defense, is a president and a civilian secretary in this much public conflict. We've learned there were disagreements between LBJ and the Pentagon, but much less was known at the time," Hurlburt says.

"In times past, a secretary of defense who had this many differences with his boss would either quit on his own or be told to do so. Mattis and Trump, though, are both well aware of the high regard in which Mattis is held across Washington — even by those who, in a different administration, would strongly oppose his policy beliefs."

"It may be time to start thinking about Mattis as the Robert Mueller of national security policy. Republican officials in particular should ask themselves what they are willing to do to ensure Mattis remains in the Trump administration."

Mattis is a reassuringly stable presence in a turbulent White House. We should all hope he stays put, Fareed says, not least so he can act as a counterweight to the hawkish impulses of the incoming national security adviser, John Bolton.

"The national security adviser is the gatekeeper through whom all influence on foreign policy comes. He is the guy who shapes the options the President has. And on Monday, that role will be taken up by a man who is arguably the most extreme hawk within the US foreign policy establishment of the last 30 years," Fareed says.

"Just look at the approach to North Korea. Bolton has argued in favor of an unprovoked war against North Korea. We're not talking about a pre-emptive strike on a country that is imminently set to strike the United States. We're talking about a preventive war, an unprovoked attack against a country that could retaliate with nuclear weapons.

"To have somebody like that with a President who, I think it's fair to say, has a thin grasp of international affairs, is very worrying. That's why General Mattis could be seen as the most important person in the American government right now – and why we need him to stay."

The Folly of the "Illiberal Democracy" Label

Hungarians head to the polls Sunday. But whether or not Prime Minister Viktor Orban secures a fourth term with his hardline, anti-immigration platform, one thing should be clear: he has all but forfeited the right to call his country a democracy, Jan-Werner Müller suggests in The New York Times. It's important that our choice of words reflects that reality.

"Mr. Orban has spent the past several years weakening his country's democratic checks and balances; he has attacked independent civil society, and he has brought the media under the control of oligarchs close to his government. While doing so, he has advertised his approach as a distinctive form of democracy, one fit to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It is, he says, 'illiberal democracy,'" Müller says.

"Plenty of critics have adopted this term as a description not just of Hungary, but of redesigned political systems in countries as different as Poland and Turkey. Yet 'illiberal democracy' fails to capture what is wrong with these regimes."

"A democracy can have illiberal policies, but it cannot do without basic political liberties and protections. We are doing Mr. Orban a great favor by accepting him as any kind of democrat. The designation 'democracy' still remains the most coveted political prize around the world. In what can only be called an unforced error, we are giving that prize to leaders who not only devalue it, but are also busy destroying the thing itself."

Trump's Music to Ankara's Ears

As President Trump pushed his national security team for a quick exit from Syria, t he leaders of Turkey, Russia and Iran were gathering in Ankara. They will no doubt like what they've been hearing from Washington, suggests Yaroslav Trofimov in the Wall Street Journal.

"All three leaders stand to benefit if President Donald Trump goes ahead with his stated desire to withdraw American troops—another major player in the Syrian conflict. In their joint statement Wednesday, Russia, Turkey and Iran condemned 'attempts to create new realities on the ground under the pretext of combating terrorism' —a reference to America's military presence and its partnership with [the Syrian Kurdish group] YPG.

"YPG and allied Syrian groups currently control a huge swath of eastern Syria—areas that they have liberated with American help from Islamic State. Without American protection, YPG wouldn't stand a chance against Turkey—and would likely turn over these areas to Iran and the Syrian regime. That's a nightmare scenario for Israel, Saudi Arabia and other regional powers that hope for a more muscular American approach to Iran."

The Energy Crisis No One Wants to Talk About

Efforts to tackle carbon emissions in the United States are facing an emergency, but it's one that no one – especially environmentalists – seems to want to talk about, writes David Roberts for Vox. The reason? The emergency is nuclear power plants – and the fact that they are closing.

Roberts notes that four power plants in the "PJM Interconnection, a mid-Atlantic energy market," are set close by 2021, taking with them "40 terawatt-hours of energy in 2017 — more energy than was produced by PJM's entire fleet of wind and solar plants (30 TWh)."

"Here's my question: Why aren't climate hawks freaking out about this?

"Imagine a great hurricane was forecast to strike the mid-Atlantic in four years, crushing millions of wind turbines and solar panels, wiping out all of PJM's installed renewable energy capacity. Wouldn't climate hawks treat that as a grave danger?

"If climate change is indeed an existential threat, isn't the loss of 40 TWh a year of carbon-free energy a four-alarm emergency?"

A New Tax the World's Poor Should Embrace?

Britain introduces a tax Friday on sugary drinks. The good news for the government? New research suggests that taxes on sugar – as well as tobacco and alcohol – really do work, writes Sarah Boseley for The Guardian. Especially for poorer households worst hit by non-communicable diseases like diabetes and cancer.

A series of studies published in The Lancet this week found "taxes have a greater impact on the smaller household budgets of poorer families. They respond by buying less, with greater benefits for their health. In the UK, say the authors, the response to the possible introduction of a minimum price for alcohol was estimated to be 7.6 times larger in the poorest households, compared with the wealthiest," Boseley writes.

"In Mexico, the introduction of a sugary drinks tax resulted in an average of 4.2 liters less of soft drinks purchased per person, with a 17% decrease in purchases among lower income groups and almost no change in higher income groups. In Lebanon, they say, a 50% increase in the price of cigarettes would lead to twice as many people quitting smoking in poorer households as affluent families."

Forward

Copyright © 2017 CNN

What did you like about today's Global Briefing? What did we miss? Let us know what you think: GlobalBriefing@cnn.com

unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences