Ken Schultz
@kschultz.bsky.social
I am professor of political science at Stanford University and an avid nature photographer. All views are my own. More photos at https://kenschultz.smugmug.com
Yes! No pictures allowed, though.
January 11, 2026 at 9:27 PM
Yes! No pictures allowed, though.
But part of the deal with R2P was that you would get UN blessing for the violation of sovereignty, to reassure others that the intervention was consistent with international law. This was the opposite of that.
January 8, 2026 at 10:26 AM
But part of the deal with R2P was that you would get UN blessing for the violation of sovereignty, to reassure others that the intervention was consistent with international law. This was the opposite of that.
That, or his boss is an imperialist who would rather dominate than negotiate.
January 6, 2026 at 1:03 PM
That, or his boss is an imperialist who would rather dominate than negotiate.
With any other president, we would assume a mismatch between means and ends was due to constraints, but I guess with Trump we can’t rule out incoherent preferences. 🤷♂️
January 5, 2026 at 8:04 PM
With any other president, we would assume a mismatch between means and ends was due to constraints, but I guess with Trump we can’t rule out incoherent preferences. 🤷♂️
I think everyone will have a different take on who defected first! @yoshikoherrera.bsky.social and @andrewkydd.bsky.social have a great paper on this.
www.cambridge.org/core/journal...
www.cambridge.org/core/journal...
Don’t Look Back in Anger: Cooperation Despite Conflicting Historical Narratives | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core
Don’t Look Back in Anger: Cooperation Despite Conflicting Historical Narratives - Volume 118 Issue 3
www.cambridge.org
January 5, 2026 at 8:00 PM
I think everyone will have a different take on who defected first! @yoshikoherrera.bsky.social and @andrewkydd.bsky.social have a great paper on this.
www.cambridge.org/core/journal...
www.cambridge.org/core/journal...
The question going forward is whether this limited approach will deliver what Trump wants. Governance by air strike and blockade is unlikely to work. If so, he may eventually feel compelled to escalate further. Limited operations don’t always stay limited.6/6
January 5, 2026 at 5:59 PM
The question going forward is whether this limited approach will deliver what Trump wants. Governance by air strike and blockade is unlikely to work. If so, he may eventually feel compelled to escalate further. Limited operations don’t always stay limited.6/6
It was also designed in a way to minimize US casualties, which is the main thing the US public cares about. (Yes, there were Venezuelan casualties and a mounting financial cost but no president has paid a political price for those.) 5/6
January 5, 2026 at 5:59 PM
It was also designed in a way to minimize US casualties, which is the main thing the US public cares about. (Yes, there were Venezuelan casualties and a mounting financial cost but no president has paid a political price for those.) 5/6
Instead, the operation was designed to have plausible legal cover under the 1989 OLC decision justifying the seizure of Noriega, allowing his GOP allies to claim that Congressional approval wasn’t necessary and (I assume) reassuring the generals that the order was legal. 4/6
January 5, 2026 at 5:59 PM
Instead, the operation was designed to have plausible legal cover under the 1989 OLC decision justifying the seizure of Noriega, allowing his GOP allies to claim that Congressional approval wasn’t necessary and (I assume) reassuring the generals that the order was legal. 4/6
We did not oust the regime, we are not (despite what Trump said) running the country, we do not have control over their oil resources. All of that would have required a much larger military operation with boots on the ground and extensive post-combat operations, i.e, nation building. 3/6
January 5, 2026 at 5:59 PM
We did not oust the regime, we are not (despite what Trump said) running the country, we do not have control over their oil resources. All of that would have required a much larger military operation with boots on the ground and extensive post-combat operations, i.e, nation building. 3/6
It was reckless and illegal under international law, but the operation was limited in ways that did not deliver what Trump really wants, presumably because of constraints coming from the uniformed military, his party, and concerns about public reaction. 2/6
January 5, 2026 at 5:59 PM
It was reckless and illegal under international law, but the operation was limited in ways that did not deliver what Trump really wants, presumably because of constraints coming from the uniformed military, his party, and concerns about public reaction. 2/6
I don't claim to understand these people, but maybe they think that comes across better than "he didn't have the resolve to mount the kind of operation needed to install her."
January 5, 2026 at 12:18 PM
I don't claim to understand these people, but maybe they think that comes across better than "he didn't have the resolve to mount the kind of operation needed to install her."
This is plausible with regards to Trump's "thinking," but the military operation needed to install the opposition would have been much larger and costlier than what they did. My guess is that many people in the admin would have been opposed to that course.
January 5, 2026 at 12:11 PM
This is plausible with regards to Trump's "thinking," but the military operation needed to install the opposition would have been much larger and costlier than what they did. My guess is that many people in the admin would have been opposed to that course.