Intelligence is not evidence.  Intelligence can be manipulated.  Intelligence can be unsubstantiated and yet presented as fact.  Intelligence can be known to be false and yet presented as highly likely true.  Intelligence can be formed into most any shape.  Relying solely on intelligence that has not been vetted is careless.  For example, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, enacted on August 10, 1964, gave President Lyndon B. Johnson authorization to send U.S. troops to fight against North Vietnam.  In 2003, the former United States Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara revealed that half of the intelligence used to secure the passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution never happened.  The United States lost 58,220 services members in the Vietnam War.  It is estimated that a total of 2,450,000 lives were lost during the conflict

President Trump’s National Security Advisor, John Bolton, knows exactly how elastic intelligence can be – how easy it is to shape it into the appearance of evidence. Bolton was instrumental in the run up to the Iraq War.  In 2002 Bolton was party to intelligence that claimed Saddam Hussein was trying to build nuclear weapons.  That intelligence has since been proven false.  Bolton does not assume blame for the outcome of the Iraq War.  He still maintains it was the correct decision to topple the Saddam Hussein regime.  And Bolton was not along in his desire to invade Iraq.  President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, along with Don Rumsfeld and many others in the administration felt strongly that the intelligence was flexible enough to sell the invasion to the American people and the world. It is estimated that 500,000 casualties resulted from the Iraq War.

 Bolton has a long history of advocating for regime change in N. Korea.  While most people recognize that the Kim Dynasty has perpetrated the most grotesque oppression of human beings, on par with Hitler and Stalin, the uncertainty of what an all out invasion would look like has been enough to keep the U.S. military out of N. Korea since 1953.   Unless the United States and allies could execute the most overwhelming strategic strikes, taking out all of N. Korea’s response capabilities, Seoul, Korea’s 9.8 million people would be an obvious target for North Korean missiles and airstrikes. 

Bolton correctly recognizes that N. Korea is never going give up its nuclear weapons peacefully.  The only way N. Korea will ever be nuclear free is if it is defeated militarily.  The difference between Bolton and most other foreign policy types is he thinks the risk of leaving nuclear weapons in the hands of N. Korea is a greater threat to the United States than the risk of removing them through military intervention.  Bolton may be correct in this regard.  Also, the intelligence surrounding N. Korea has led to unequivocal evidence.  Bolton does not have to sell the threat.  He just needs to convince Trump that invasion is worth the risk. 

In the past, Bolton has called for regime change in Cuba and Syria.  Most recently Venezuela has made his watch list.  Whether the United States can peacefully foster the removal of socialist Nicolas Maduro in favor of capitalist Juan Guaido only time will tell.  Bolton would favor military intervention if necessary to remove Maduro.  The majority of lawmakers have yet to signal that such actions would be worth the price.

Bolton is being accused of using the Iraq War playbook to lead the United States into war with Iran.  Behind closed doors he is telling key lawmakers that Iran proxies are attacking oil lines and oil tankers.  He maintains that Iran is still pursuing nuclear weapons and is a grave threat to Israel as well as the United States.  Some left-wing commentators have called him a warmonger.  This is too simple a label.  Examining his decades of service to the United States, a clearer picture of the John Bolton perspective is found in the law of the instrument.

Bolton’s disdain for the Islamic Republic is long standing.  His loose play with intelligence is well known.  Even GOP lawmakers are concerned that he may be able to influence Trump into taking preemptive military action without first consulting Congress.  This distracts from the fact that Iran really does want nuclear weapons.  It wants to exceed Israel’s military strength.  It wants to harm the United States of America.  It is a state sponsor of terror around the world.  In Bolton’s view, Iran is a nail.  The United States is the hammer.  And that’s the concept known as the law of the instrument. 

American psychologist Abraham Maslow (1908 –1970) said in 1966, “I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail”.  This concept, the law of the instrument is attributed to both Maslow and Abraham Kaplan.  When comparing this concept to Bolton’s well established hawkish stance, it is fair to conclude that Bolton has a limited set of tools to use when dealing with problematic countries around the world.  It is clear that he is most comfortable with the hammer.  He sees most problems as nails.

In all fairness to Bolton, some of these countries are indeed nails.  The best tool known to drive nails is a hammer.  Bolton will always readily recommend a hammer when confronted with a nail.  The problem is when Bolton is certain a nail exists, and it does not.  Armed with a hammer, he is of no use without a nail.