Jump to content


Trump Foreign Policy


Recommended Posts


Again, it really seems like a whole lot of them view Trump's actions through a different filter than Obama's, and treated him accordingly.

It's the team mentality, or tribalism, or whatever you want to call it. We see it here on HuskerBoard all day.

Link to comment

 

The Syrians can be bitter toward Obama that he didn't remove Assad, but that is not America's role in the world. We can't be the world's police force.

 

And speaking of hypocritical, when we do act as the world's police force, we're denounced as American imperialists.

 

Bottom line is, Syria is a humanitarian problem, not a United States problem.

I completely 100% emphatically agree with this.

 

I am NOT in favor of the US going in and "Fixing" this.

 

Agree with you guys. Like knapp said, we must consider where these people are coming from. They are begging any outside force to come in and help them, which obviously is a sympathetic argument given the crisis. On the other hand, part of that is going to be savaging those who don't help them completely and buttering up those who might.

 

Take their perspectives on other political leaders in context, I guess.

Link to comment

On the topic of Obama's "red line" in 2013 ... if I recall, he threatened to conduct airstrikes but this was averted when the multilateral deal was reached to disarm the chemical weapons stockpile. He maintained his posture towards Assad (i.e, removing him) and no further attacks like that occurred during his presidency.

 

He didn't actually remove Assad, either, and that came with a toll to Syrians who have every right to be bitter towards him. At the same time, Russia wants to keep Assad in power in this absurd proxy war playing out at Syrians' expense. This dynamic has not changed and it's still an unsolved problem. Further, if the U.S. succeeds in muscling out Russia and removing Assad, what happens next is a mystery, especially if the U.S. is not committed to maintaining an occupying presence. Such a presence may breed enmity more than it brings stability, if history is any guide.

 

Furthermore, Republican Congressmen who warned President Obama about the legality of conducting war without their consent were right on that score. This is even beyond the scope of the Unending Terror War. There are many fair questions to be asked here, a there would have been had Obama actually gone through with strikes.

 

To me it's not clear that striking at Assad in response to this event is the wrong move. It's also not clear that it is the right one. These are the hawkish instincts of both Trump and Clinton on full display and that's an area of each candidate about which I was pretty leery. And as others have noted, Trump's about face on the matter raises serious, serious questions about his approach.

 

I don't think it raises serious questions about his approach. I think his approach is fundamentally what it also has been. Trump is a draft-dodging businessman with no experience in foreign policy or military strategy. Now, I view every action he takes as being viewed through the prism of how it will affect the public perception of him. I think he'd rather defer to the Mattis and other gifted military commanders on issues such as these and focus his efforts domestically.

 

Ergo, if you trust our military leadership, I"d guess you'll be fine with most of our moves. But Trump is so fundamentally ignorant in this area I don't know that he'll serve as much of an effective check on them.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

 

On the topic of Obama's "red line" in 2013 ... if I recall, he threatened to conduct airstrikes but this was averted when the multilateral deal was reached to disarm the chemical weapons stockpile. He maintained his posture towards Assad (i.e, removing him) and no further attacks like that occurred during his presidency.

He didn't actually remove Assad, either, and that came with a toll to Syrians who have every right to be bitter towards him. At the same time, Russia wants to keep Assad in power in this absurd proxy war playing out at Syrians' expense. This dynamic has not changed and it's still an unsolved problem. Further, if the U.S. succeeds in muscling out Russia and removing Assad, what happens next is a mystery, especially if the U.S. is not committed to maintaining an occupying presence. Such a presence may breed enmity more than it brings stability, if history is any guide.

Furthermore, Republican Congressmen who warned President Obama about the legality of conducting war without their consent were right on that score. This is even beyond the scope of the Unending Terror War. There are many fair questions to be asked here, a there would have been had Obama actually gone through with strikes.

To me it's not clear that striking at Assad in response to this event is the wrong move. It's also not clear that it is the right one. These are the hawkish instincts of both Trump and Clinton on full display and that's an area of each candidate about which I was pretty leery. And as others have noted, Trump's about face on the matter raises serious, serious questions about his approach.

 

I don't think it raises serious questions about his approach. I think his approach is fundamentally what it also has been. Trump is a draft-dodging businessman with no experience in foreign policy or military strategy. Now, I view every action he takes as being viewed through the prism of how it will affect the public perception of him. I think he'd rather defer to the Mattis and other gifted military commanders on issues such as these and focus his efforts domestically.

 

Ergo, if you trust our military leadership, I"d guess you'll be fine with most of our moves. But Trump is so fundamentally ignorant in this area I don't know that he'll serve as much of an effective check on them.

And being so unequipped/unexperienced with foreign affairs and military issues, is it really that shocking that he flipped his stance 4-5 years later?

Link to comment

He's still the commander in chief. I know our military executes the strikes, but our military is full of both Hawks and doves with ideas good and bad. It's a dangerous situation when they're jockeying for influence and the President has no coherent vision. In taking action we've begun charting a course and constricting our options in a way that it's not clear the President ever intended. You don't take these things one step at a time.

 

So, no, it wouldn't be shocking either if this is just about his continuing lack of foreign policy literacy. Incidentally a great reason to avoid electing illiterate and incompetent people.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

I haven't formed an opinion yet if the decision to lob some tomahawks at Syria was a good or bad thing. I just haven't paid enough attention to what Assad has been doing or considered all of the possible repercussions. But I have noticed that many seem to be framing their opinion of this decision on what Trump and others said 4 years ago about taking action in Syria. Those 4 year old comments may very well be relevant for pointing out the hypocrisy of Trump or the Republicans but they have absolutely zero to do with determining if this current action was warranted or if it was a good or bad thing.

 

Can we please all agree that 4 year old tweets have not one damn thing to do with determining the prudence of current or future actions?

  • Fire 5
Link to comment

The very specific concern is this is highly inconsistent with Trump's goals. It makes it difficult to parse both his general foreign policy views and the current Syria agenda. In fact, it suggests there is not one -- to quote the great Jason Chaffetz, "there's no step 2, 3, 4". That's greatly concerning.

 

The stronger argument on hypocrisy in my view is directed at Congressmen such as Chaffetz, who feigned fealty to these "only Congress has the power to make war" principles in the past but have now been revealed to be hollow, and to his supporters, who bemoaned hawkishness only to celebrate it now. To I guess the alt-right's credit, they are horrified at this affront to their Russian friends in favor of beleaguered Syrian civilians. Wait, is that credit?....I digress.

 

So, I agree with you in that I'm unsure what exactly to make of the current situation and what the best courses of action are. However, in my view this does not make the discussion of hypocrisy and the concerns about Trump's coherency and approach any less relevant. In brief, what knapp said earlier about "multitasking"/parallel processing.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

 

The Syrians can be bitter toward Obama that he didn't remove Assad, but that is not America's role in the world. We can't be the world's police force.

 

And speaking of hypocritical, when we do act as the world's police force, we're denounced as American imperialists.

 

Bottom line is, Syria is a humanitarian problem, not a United States problem.

I completely 100% emphatically agree with this.

 

I am NOT in favor of the US going in and "Fixing" this.

 

 

I also agree with this.

Lately the US just can't win in these scenarios. Yes, it would be great if people doing bad things, like Assad (or Saddam...) were stopped. Unfortunately it seems most of the rest of the world is a lot less willing to step up to the plate. And I'm sick and tired of the US being forced into being the responsible responders. Say what you will about lack of WMD's or Bush's rationale for taking action in Iraq, the fact is Saddam was a bad man that needed to be removed. Doing that job for the rest of world sure didn't curry any favor for us, internationally or domestically. And Obama's lack of action in that part of the world has only allowed things to proliferate. It's pretty much damned if you do and damned if you don't. For humanitarian reasons I'd love to help the Syrian people and help wipe out ISIS and radical terrorists but it has pretty much been proven to be a losing proposition. I am all for some others stepping up to the plate and handling it but who, and where are they?

 

The one thing I do know, it makes me nervous as hell relying on Trump or our dysfunctional government to fill that role. He just doesn't have the knowledge, understanding or temperament to be the one righting the wrongs in the world. IMO, based on everything I have witnessed so far, anything he does is likely more dangerous than doing nothing. He just doesn't behave like a rational grownup.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

 

On the topic of Obama's "red line" in 2013 ... if I recall, he threatened to conduct airstrikes but this was averted when the multilateral deal was reached to disarm the chemical weapons stockpile. He maintained his posture towards Assad (i.e, removing him) and no further attacks like that occurred during his presidency.

 

He didn't actually remove Assad, either, and that came with a toll to Syrians who have every right to be bitter towards him. At the same time, Russia wants to keep Assad in power in this absurd proxy war playing out at Syrians' expense. This dynamic has not changed and it's still an unsolved problem. Further, if the U.S. succeeds in muscling out Russia and removing Assad, what happens next is a mystery, especially if the U.S. is not committed to maintaining an occupying presence. Such a presence may breed enmity more than it brings stability, if history is any guide.

 

Furthermore, Republican Congressmen who warned President Obama about the legality of conducting war without their consent were right on that score. This is even beyond the scope of the Unending Terror War. There are many fair questions to be asked here, a there would have been had Obama actually gone through with strikes.

 

To me it's not clear that striking at Assad in response to this event is the wrong move. It's also not clear that it is the right one. These are the hawkish instincts of both Trump and Clinton on full display and that's an area of each candidate about which I was pretty leery. And as others have noted, Trump's about face on the matter raises serious, serious questions about his approach.

 

I don't think it raises serious questions about his approach. I think his approach is fundamentally what it also has been. Trump is a draft-dodging businessman with no experience in foreign policy or military strategy. Now, I view every action he takes as being viewed through the prism of how it will affect the public perception of him. I think he'd rather defer to the Mattis and other gifted military commanders on issues such as these and focus his efforts domestically.

 

Ergo, if you trust our military leadership, I"d guess you'll be fine with most of our moves. But Trump is so fundamentally ignorant in this area I don't know that he'll serve as much of an effective check on them.

 

You know what??? I'm actually fully prepared for someone of this description to be president. There are extremely smart people who can do the job that would fall under this description.

 

HOWEVER, for that to be successful, they would need to have some form of humble cell in their body that tells them...."I don't have experience here, I need the best people around me and I need to listen to their advice and make wise decisions".

 

THAT is where Trump has failed to show the world he is able to work within.

 

Having the attitude of...."I'm smarter than the Generals" is so far away from the appropriate attitude to be successful it's not even in the same universe.

 

Then, you put people in place in advisory positions that don't have any experience in these issues.....AND Bannon right at the top......

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

The very specific concern is this is highly inconsistent with Trump's goals. It makes it difficult to parse both his general foreign policy views and the current Syria agenda. In fact, it suggests there is not one -- to quote the great Jason Chaffetz, "there's no step 2, 3, 4". That's greatly concerning.

 

The stronger argument on hypocrisy in my view is directed at Congressmen such as Chaffetz, who feigned fealty to these "only Congress has the power to make war" principles in the past but have now been revealed to be hollow, and to his supporters, who bemoaned hawkishness only to celebrate it now. To I guess the alt-right's credit, they are horrified at this affront to their Russian friends in favor of beleaguered Syrian civilians. Wait, is that credit?....I digress.

 

So, I agree with you in that I'm unsure what exactly to make of the current situation and what the best courses of action are. However, in my view this does not make the discussion of hypocrisy and the concerns about Trump's coherency and approach any less relevant. In brief, what knapp said earlier about "multitasking"/parallel processing.

I agree, we can multitask and the hypocrisy is worthy of discussion. It has nothing to do with determining the prudence of yesterday's actions but it does become a lot more relevant when you consider what steps 2-3-4 might be and his overall foreign policy views.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

I agree, we can multitask and the hypocrisy is worthy of discussion. It has nothing to do with determining the prudence of yesterday's actions but it does become a lot more relevant when you consider what steps 2-3-4 might be and his overall foreign policy views.

Nobody here is doing that. Those are windmills, not giants.

Link to comment

 

I agree, we can multitask and the hypocrisy is worthy of discussion. It has nothing to do with determining the prudence of yesterday's actions but it does become a lot more relevant when you consider what steps 2-3-4 might be and his overall foreign policy views.

Nobody here is doing that. Those are windmills, not giants.

 

I concur, nobody here has been doing that. That's why I did not accuse anyone of doing it and only requested that everyone agree that it has nothing to do with it. The request was born out of my desire to learn more about the actual issue at hand in Syria and my complete lack of desire for further revisiting what a complete hypocritical moron Trump is. It's not that I want to let him off the hook for all the tweets and stupid sh#t he says but it is tiresome that it (maybe inevitably) clouds every discussion involving him.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

 

 

I agree, we can multitask and the hypocrisy is worthy of discussion. It has nothing to do with determining the prudence of yesterday's actions but it does become a lot more relevant when you consider what steps 2-3-4 might be and his overall foreign policy views.

 

Nobody here is doing that. Those are windmills, not giants.

I concur, nobody here has been doing that. That's why I did not accuse anyone of doing it and only requested that everyone agree that it has nothing to do with it. The request was born out of my desire to learn more about the actual issue at hand in Syria and my complete lack of desire for further revisiting what a complete hypocritical moron Trump is. It's not that I want to let him off the hook for all the tweets and stupid sh#t he says but it is tiresome that it (maybe inevitably) clouds every discussion involving him.

giphy.gif

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

 

 

 

 

On the topic of Obama's "red line" in 2013 ... if I recall, he threatened to conduct airstrikes but this was averted when the multilateral deal was reached to disarm the chemical weapons stockpile. He maintained his posture towards Assad (i.e, removing him) and no further attacks like that occurred during his presidency.

 

He didn't actually remove Assad, either, and that came with a toll to Syrians who have every right to be bitter towards him. At the same time, Russia wants to keep Assad in power in this absurd proxy war playing out at Syrians' expense. This dynamic has not changed and it's still an unsolved problem. Further, if the U.S. succeeds in muscling out Russia and removing Assad, what happens next is a mystery, especially if the U.S. is not committed to maintaining an occupying presence. Such a presence may breed enmity more than it brings stability, if history is any guide.

 

Furthermore, Republican Congressmen who warned President Obama about the legality of conducting war without their consent were right on that score. This is even beyond the scope of the Unending Terror War. There are many fair questions to be asked here, a there would have been had Obama actually gone through with strikes.

 

To me it's not clear that striking at Assad in response to this event is the wrong move. It's also not clear that it is the right one. These are the hawkish instincts of both Trump and Clinton on full display and that's an area of each candidate about which I was pretty leery. And as others have noted, Trump's about face on the matter raises serious, serious questions about his approach.

I don't think it raises serious questions about his approach. I think his approach is fundamentally what it also has been. Trump is a draft-dodging businessman with no experience in foreign policy or military strategy. Now, I view every action he takes as being viewed through the prism of how it will affect the public perception of him. I think he'd rather defer to the Mattis and other gifted military commanders on issues such as these and focus his efforts domestically.

 

Ergo, if you trust our military leadership, I"d guess you'll be fine with most of our moves. But Trump is so fundamentally ignorant in this area I don't know that he'll serve as much of an effective check on them.

You know what??? I'm actually fully prepared for someone of this description to be president. There are extremely smart people who can do the job that would fall under this description.

 

HOWEVER, for that to be successful, they would need to have some form of humble cell in their body that tells them...."I don't have experience here, I need the best people around me and I need to listen to their advice and make wise decisions".

 

THAT is where Trump has failed to show the world he is able to work within.

 

Having the attitude of...."I'm smarter than the Generals" is so far away from the appropriate attitude to be successful it's not even in the same universe.

 

Then, you put people in place in advisory positions that don't have any experience in these issues.....AND Bannon right at the top......

 

Spot on.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...