Trump Foreign Policy

[Danny Bateman]

It's a shame Count isn't still around. I have a feeling this will really rustle the jimmies of the "Apology Tour" guys.

 

[Danny Bateman]

[Moiraine]

f'ing dolt

 

A weak NATO paves the way for Russia to do whatever the hell it wants. But I guess it's no surprise he's fine with that.

[NM11046]

He's a f'cki*ng embarrassment. This goes along the "showmanship" route, similar to all the empty file folders rolled out showing his financial interests moving into his childrens' responsibility, and the "great big nasty ACA act vs. the small government little tiny AHCA document".

 

He's a rookie, a punk and we are a laughing stock.

[NM11046]

Seriously, who is it in the cabinet meetings that says, "Hey Don, you know what would be great? Give her bill!" Aren't there at least one or two others in the room that say, "nah, probably not a good idea."

[BigRedBuster]

OK....question.

 

I'm also sick and tired of footing the bill for security around the world for other countries.

How do we get them to pony up?

[zoogs]

By forcing them (through a show of our unreliability as an ally) to develop rival military capabilities that can form non-US coalitions to challenge our interests?

[BigRedBuster]

Again, how do we get these countries like France and Germany who are well developed modern countries with money to pay for the security we are providing them?

[zoogs]

Are these not our own security interests, too?

[BigRedBuster]

Are these not our own security interests, too?

Where did I say we shouldn't help pay?

[zoogs]

I suppose I'm fairly ignorant about this issue. To what extent do we actually need or want other countries to increase their own defense budgets? To what extent are we willing or interested in reducing our own spending -- i.e, withdrawing US military presence in areas where we currently play a role?

 

Also, nobody is actually going to *pay* the United States in exchange for security, right? The whole NATO 2% by 2024 thing we are talking about is asking other NATO countries to increase their defense budget as a percentage of their own GDP. Didn't this idea that they would pay the US originate with Trump and his fanciful rhetoric/alleged waving of made-up invoices?

[Danny Bateman]

OK....question.

 

I'm also sick and tired of footing the bill for security around the world for other countries.

How do we get them to pony up?

 

I mean, the forces we have stationed around the world serve our own geopolitical interests as much as they do anyone else's.

 

The reason the bill thing was so silly was that the obligation was to build up their contribution to 2% of GDP to defense spending by 2024. That's an agreement amongst NATO companies to invest in themselves. It's not payable to Trump or anyone else. There's no debt component if a country hasn't met 2% defense spending yet. It made POTUS look like an ignorant fool, IMO.

 

If we DO want places to pony up, we can't do so with empty threats. We'd have to actually change our force distribution in the world, which would alter our foreign policy and geopolitical strategy, would it not?

 

Edit: zoogs had it right. 2024 was the goal, not 2020.

[BigRedBuster]

OK....let's all agree on something. The bill trick that Trump pulled was just stupid and Trump is a blubbering idiot. Debating what he did or is doing is meaningless so let's not waste our times doing that.

 

I'm also assuming that most of the board is not a fan of the American military industrial complex that promotes us having hundreds of thousands of troops around the world using weapons and equipment it is providing.

 

However, much of that military system is in place to protect people like Germany, France, Poland, Japan, South Korea....etc. fore which we have been doing for a very very long time. Now, we can either all agree that we are just going to keep doing that...which in reply, then we need to stop complaining about military budgets and the MIC. OR....we can start to pull back and have these countries start to use more of their own resources to provide these services.

 

Personally, I'm for pulling back and hopefully closing many of the close to 800 military installations around the world and using those resources here at home.

[StPaulHusker]

OK....let's all agree on something. The bill trick that Trump pulled was just stupid and Trump is a blubbering idiot. Debating what he did or is doing is meaningless so let's not waste our times doing that.

 

I'm also assuming that most of the board is not a fan of the American military industrial complex that promotes us having hundreds of thousands of troops around the world using weapons and equipment it is providing.

 

However, much of that military system is in place to protect people like Germany, France, Poland, Japan, South Korea....etc. fore which we have been doing for a very very long time. Now, we can either all agree that we are just going to keep doing that...which in reply, then we need to stop complaining about military budgets and the MIC. OR....we can start to pull back and have these countries start to use more of their own resources to provide these services.

 

Personally, I'm for pulling back and hopefully closing many of the close to 800 military installations around the world and using those resources here at home.

While 800 installations seems like a lot and probably is, there is more to it than just "protecting" these other countries.

 

These countries allow us, without questions because of what we have in place, to operate within their borders as forward operating bases for conflicts.

 

Let's say we decided to close shop on Germany and have them use their own resources. What hospital to wounded vets get flown to from the Afghan and Iraq conflicts?

[zoogs]

Yeah, this is an interesting topic. I'm not personally heavily invested in any one side here. I'm skeptical of the MIC, of course. At the same time I have quite a bit of deference towards the post-WW2, post-Cold War American-led world.

 

So when I hear some of these fairly common refrains on US and allied military spending, I like to challenge it. You point out some of the dimensions of that challenge. I mean, don't we love our heavy military spending here? Don't we love our global leadership role?

 

I suspect this is all little more than some chauvinistic gnashing of the teeth: demonize non-American countries, even allies, but ultimately not really want any change. Well, aside from cutting arts and science spending to fund an asinine military buildup, but that's almost tangential to this discussion.