Arkady
President
Trump likes to pretend he opposed the Iraq War. In reality, he supported it until it was clear it was going poorly then changed his stance. But, from the perspective of someone disgusted by neo-conservatism, it's tempting to hope that even though he hasn't acknowledged his past mistake, maybe he learned from it. He has said a number of encouraging anti-imperial things during the campaign, suggesting that perhaps he'll be less eager to play the global policeman.
I'm skeptical, though. I'm reminded of the vibe I got from GW Bush in 2000. People tend to forget this in light of the disaster that played out over the next eight years, but Bush actually campaigned AGAINST Clinton's interventionism. That was back when the GOP publicly worried about "mission fatigue," criticized Clinton for "nation building," and insisted we should never involve ourselves abroad without a clear "exit strategy." At a presidential debate, Bush pointed out that how other nations respond to the US would depend on how we conduct our foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us, but if we're a humble nation, they'll respect us.
It was an implicit critique of the wearying nation-building operations of Clinton in places like Haiti and Somalia, as well as a suggestion that Bush wouldn't be a neoconservative. It should have been music to a lefty's ears, but I was sure it was just talk -- that once in office Bush foreign policy would be anything but humble. His key advisors were old cold warriors and the most bellicose members of the prior regimes, including a bunch of PNAC thugs. I just couldn't picture foreign policy humility from that bloodthirsty gang. Sure enough by year two he was pushing hard for us to start a war on Iraq, in defiance of international law, and the majority of nations, and the majority in the Security Council, and even the majority of our allies. He arrogantly thought he knew best how to deal with the non-existent WMDs.
That's what I think we're getting from Trump -- empty rhetoric suggesting a less interventionist foreign policy, that will actually give way to dangerously aggressive use of the military. He is a famously thin-skinned narcissist who engages in constant Twitter wars over petty disputes. Maybe he'll be more circumspect when it comes to real wars, but for a guy so obsessed with the appearance of "strength" and "winning," I can definitely picture him using our military as an extension of his ego. Can't you?
He has apparently been asking why he can't just nuke our adversaries. He has also called for torture much worse than waterboarding, and for murdering the children of suspected terrorists -- two things that will certainly inspire more anti-American attacks, meaning an escalating cycle of violence. He has also repeatedly called for seizing middle eastern oil fields, saying that the victor should get the spoils. Going back to that very open form of colonialism would, obviously, require a massive US presence to defend those seizures against the people who actually live there -- something more along the lines of the old British Empire than the kind of subtle corporate neo-colonialism we've mastered in recent decades, which doesn't require that same military presence to preserve it.
It's unlikely that "Trump’s shifting, temperamental geopolitical approach would survive a collision with reality." And that's what the right-wing National Review has to say about it! From the perspective of a centrist or liberal, the guy is even more alarming.
I'm skeptical, though. I'm reminded of the vibe I got from GW Bush in 2000. People tend to forget this in light of the disaster that played out over the next eight years, but Bush actually campaigned AGAINST Clinton's interventionism. That was back when the GOP publicly worried about "mission fatigue," criticized Clinton for "nation building," and insisted we should never involve ourselves abroad without a clear "exit strategy." At a presidential debate, Bush pointed out that how other nations respond to the US would depend on how we conduct our foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us, but if we're a humble nation, they'll respect us.
It was an implicit critique of the wearying nation-building operations of Clinton in places like Haiti and Somalia, as well as a suggestion that Bush wouldn't be a neoconservative. It should have been music to a lefty's ears, but I was sure it was just talk -- that once in office Bush foreign policy would be anything but humble. His key advisors were old cold warriors and the most bellicose members of the prior regimes, including a bunch of PNAC thugs. I just couldn't picture foreign policy humility from that bloodthirsty gang. Sure enough by year two he was pushing hard for us to start a war on Iraq, in defiance of international law, and the majority of nations, and the majority in the Security Council, and even the majority of our allies. He arrogantly thought he knew best how to deal with the non-existent WMDs.
That's what I think we're getting from Trump -- empty rhetoric suggesting a less interventionist foreign policy, that will actually give way to dangerously aggressive use of the military. He is a famously thin-skinned narcissist who engages in constant Twitter wars over petty disputes. Maybe he'll be more circumspect when it comes to real wars, but for a guy so obsessed with the appearance of "strength" and "winning," I can definitely picture him using our military as an extension of his ego. Can't you?
He has apparently been asking why he can't just nuke our adversaries. He has also called for torture much worse than waterboarding, and for murdering the children of suspected terrorists -- two things that will certainly inspire more anti-American attacks, meaning an escalating cycle of violence. He has also repeatedly called for seizing middle eastern oil fields, saying that the victor should get the spoils. Going back to that very open form of colonialism would, obviously, require a massive US presence to defend those seizures against the people who actually live there -- something more along the lines of the old British Empire than the kind of subtle corporate neo-colonialism we've mastered in recent decades, which doesn't require that same military presence to preserve it.
It's unlikely that "Trump’s shifting, temperamental geopolitical approach would survive a collision with reality." And that's what the right-wing National Review has to say about it! From the perspective of a centrist or liberal, the guy is even more alarming.
