Back to blog

H.R. McMaster out, John Bolton in

See blog

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.


After more than 50 years worth of U.S. State Department bungling of every single major intervention (or non-intervention) in the world, isn't it about time to throw the bums out? I welcome Trump (as vulgar and careless as he is) and Bolton as people who at least have some street smarts and can figure out which end is up.


Maybe Mr Trump is really preparing for a war with Iran or North Korea and wants to have a tough guy in his team. This could prove a viable strategy if another recession hits the world , especially, close to the date of the next presidential election. We shall see how good player Mr Trump is.

Peace Love and Understanding

Nationalist reciprocity-based diplomacy has been the preceding event to every war. It leads directly to the deterioration of relations through a tit-for-tat cycle of "getting even" which never really ends. Because who started it? When are we ever even? The election of Bolton might signal "don't mess with us" and we might be able to bully some countries into concessions to prevent violence for a while, but ultimately it will lead to World War 3.

Lao Tzu said it best: Someone must risk answering injury with kindness or hostility will never turn to goodwill. And the side that shows the most compassion will ultimately be leader to the world.

By embracing the likes of John Bolton, the United States has formerly surrendered its position of leadership of the world and this will have dire consequences for the world.

Peace Love and Understanding

It is not possible to maintain free and open debate if you are going to restrict the means of communication and feedback in such a way as to prevent the transmission and synthesis of information to help us collectively ascertain a higher Truth through shared perspectives.

Every time speech is restricted it is done in the name of preventing bad actors from abusing our freedoms to spread lies or propaganda. It is undoubtedly true that Russian (or other) trolls descended on the Economist to manipulate readers emotional vulnerabilities. This cannot be allowed to be a pretext for the surrender of our freedoms any more than the various other attempts to undermine our democratic institutions can be surrendered to.

The issue here is not that we need to stop the Russians or others from manipulating vulnerable populations into doing things that are not in the interests of the Western powers. The real issue is: WHY ARE THESE PEOPLE SO VULNERABLE IN THE FIRST PLACE? There is some sort of national failure here that is resulting in so many individuals who are capable of such manipulation, if indeed that is the cause of this. I think it is much more complicated than that. The Russians are not so powerful that a few trolls on the internet or hackers or sham data miners can sway an election. Even if all of that happened (and it probably did) why are we so vulnerable to it? That is what needs to be addressed, not expecting Russia to change (because they aren't going to, at least not for us).

Swiss Reader

At least some polite explanation of the comments policy would be in order; after all, the comments section is an explicit part of the subscription. Sudden downgrading of promised features with no reasons given is the kind of behaviour to be expected from a budget airline, but really below The Economist.


There were certain articles that drew systematic efforts by trolls to manipulate and perhaps to intimidate the some readers, specifically those articles related to Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Russia, terrorism and Trump. I suppose, TE tries to avoid comments by those trolls and perhaps to make the life of its editors easier. ; )


jouris wrote:
Time for some new IT staff, perhaps?
Nah, they probably contract it out.
Probably to the LBHK (lowest bidder, highest kickback), etc.
FBI agents and prosecutor take computers and phone from Cuyahoga County IT employees named in subpoena
The subpoena does not say what the investigators suspect nor does it identify specific contracts. has identified contracts handled either by Rouke or McNeeley, including a $371,570 no-bid contract for Hyland and a $370,975 no-bid contract for OneCommunity.
Several years before working for the county, Rourke served as CEO of OneCommunity. McNeeley's spouse, Lisa McNelley, works for Westlake-based Hyland as manager for proposal services and government contracts, according to her LinkedIn page.


Anyone who pedels war should be the first to position himself at the receiving end. I'd like to see this cowardly cowboy sit on a tank and order the first shot into North Korea thus commencing hostilities.

The position he now holds should rightfully be held by a war veteran. John Mccain or Bob Dole or others like them. Even if they were to advocate war, at least they know what war means to the affected people, unlike this office tiger.


Do readers of this biased propaganda publication realize that they do not allow comments on all articles? What is the reason for this? Anyone want to comment on the Stormy article? No chance, they only want you to read the nonsense. Worse than CNN. 'Not since a Mikhail Gorbachev impersonator enticed a fawning Donald Trump onto 5th Avenue has anyone made such a monkey of the president.'

No coverage of Bill Clinton's rapes, random lewd dropping of his pants revealing his member to women. Personally I find it appalling.

Stormy Daniels is a whore. Bill Clinton was a rapist. There's the story.

k. r. gardner

The national security adviser acts as an honest broker in disputes between such power centres as the Pentagon, State Department and CIA, as a trusted intermediary with foreign governments and as a filter, ensuring that only the most important decisions reach the president’s desk, and that they arrive there accompanied by the highest-quality intelligence and analysis.
The Chief of Staff also controls policy flow to the president’s desk. That Rob Porter was swept away as a wife-beater surely was devastating to that office. Let’s just say Bolton understands the intricacies of ‘inside the beltway’ more so than did McMaster. Sometimes intellectuals belong in a think-tank.
0n a side note, I. for one, am grateful the reply function doesn’t work. A few ‘guests’ hi-jacking the comment thread with trollish ad hominem replies could be irritating.


These erratic and irrational comment section policy changes are of the same root cause as that of the WH: thin-skined and intelligence-challenged person behind the curtain.


And now the second page of comments is not accessable. (Even trying the "Oldest first" sort.)
Come on, Economist, you're better than this. Or at least you used to be. Time for some new IT staff, perhaps?


It appears that Mr. Kelly is the last bastion of reasoned restraint in the Trump administration. When he goes, we are in for a reminder on why checks and balances are built into the system. When those checks refuse to do their job, we get what is coming. This going to be a painful, but perhaps necessary, civics lesson.


Russia has become more aggressive and has gained more influence in the world than ever before. Now, a friend of Israel and an architect of war on Iraq has become the Trump's NSA. Besides their big mouths, Trump and Bolton mirror each other when it comes to incompetency.
N. Korea wont give up its nuclear weapons, regardless of Trump's idiotic tweets.
The Trump administration cannot get a better nuclear agreement with Iran than the currently existing one.
Moreover, walking away from the nuclear deal with Iran, would be a win-win situation for Russia.
"The world is laughing at us," Trump can repeat this statement louder and louder.


Recommended reading to put possible events for the coming months in perspective:
I read Bolton's "Carolina Steamboat" WSJ article. Second tier. Pompeo is one notch above, but a larger pool of thoughtful people are needed if moves on North Korea or Iran are not to become epic debacles. Trump needs all the help he isn't getting and is too headstrong to ask for.


Bolton is a vicious militarist thug, but I maintain that all that has really happened with the Trump administration is that the gangsters have ditched their suits and are openly flashing their brass knuckles.

This is what the Anglo media and elite opponents of Trump find so disturbing: The "polite" criminality of past US administrations has been replaced by a more bare-faced variety of gangsterism, thus revealing its fundamental character.

With people like Trump and Bolton running the show, it is much harder to peddle the usual horse manure about "human rights" and "Western values".


Fortunately, there is still one moderate voice in the war cabinet who is not, knock on wood, rumored to be leaving .... someone whose nickname is 'mad-dog'.

Joe Marlowe

Every day that this circus continues, it does enormous damage to the US, to US Allies, and to the world generally.
This could not continue without the feckless behaviour of Republican members of the House and Senate.
Any Republican legislator who is not actively and energetically advancing impeachment is complicit in this disaster.


Trump fancies himself as a tough president who will be feared
around the world except in Russia. Bolton will supposedly help
in building that image. Barking with no bite generally backfires.
Pompeo and Bolton will create tension but they might eventually
be dismissed as court jesters.