President Trump’s Legitimate foreign policy proposals (1 Viewer)

Putting aside the specifics of the Turkey-Syria mess, and President Trump’s disastrous and incompetent decision making, he nonetheless, in his defense of them, offered two very legitimate foreign policy ideas. While I’m not at all sure I agree with them, I think that they are worth serious discussion, especially in regards to future events. Here they are: 

1. President Trump has complained about America being constantly involved in “forever wars” and believes we should end that practice. Specifically he believes that our long held policy of using our military as “tripwires” in order to prevent regional conflicts (because nobody wants to take the risk of a possible war with the USA) should be abandoned. Rather than discuss the dangers of immediately carrying out this policy (which even Trump must in some sense realize; he sent more troops to Saudi Arabia last week and is not sending the troops in Syria home but instead to Iraq) I’d like to discuss instead whether this is a good idea that we could achieve through some kind of slow withdrawal. 

2. President Trump, contrary to what I had supposed, is not suggesting an isolationist policy. He wants the USA to be as involved internationally as much as we were before, but he thinks we should use our economic power rather than military power to achieve our goals. Though Trump’s proposals  in this direction are typically punitive in nature (“if Turkey breaks the rules I will destroy their economy!”- which he hasn’t done) the central idea goes way beyond that and has historical precedence. One could argue that the Marshall Plan was more effective for us in winning the Cold War than all of our show and use of military power. 

So I wanted to see what people thought of these ideas. Putting aside the messenger for once, the message itself is at least...intriguing, IMO. 

IMO ..... I'm 50 years old .... old enough to have seen the US try and be the watchdog for the world, country builders, dictator tumblers etc. We've sat by and watched atrocities, and we've attacked sovereign nations and we've been in so many conflicts its not even funny. 

I'm all for withdrawing, let the UN/NATO and other countries take up the mantle. Much of the world hates the USA (loves our money, but hates us) IMO .......... if there is a genocide going on or something we HAVE to address military, then go do it, don't p-foot around and use the might of our military only when absolutely needed. Economically we can use our might to make a difference absolutely - that's very viable.

There is great money in the war dogs though ....... :(  

Problem is Trump is capitulating at every turn and leaving vaccuums for the Russians and Chinese to fill. I don't pretend to be an expert on the Turkey/Kurdish situation, but that trip wire he removed was a pretty cheap and effective deterrent in keeping Erdogan from ethnic cleansing. Seems like a pretty dumb decision, let alone morally terrible. Meanwhile, our troops aren't going home but instead to help the Saudis because $$$.

cross-posting in my thread: https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/777677-the-foreign-policy-and-geopolitical-grand-strategy-thread-in-which-we-solve-the-world/?do=findComment&comment=22395505

re: number 1 in the OP

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/24/world/africa/esper-troops-africa-china.html?te=1&nl=morning-briefing&emc=edit_NN_p_20191224&section=topNews?campaign_id=9&instance_id=14781&segment_id=19848&user_id=4bdbf0cd3074ccd2e7a949c91ec9ee2c&regi_id=90387925tion=topNews

I think that there is certainly some value to considering how to most effectively utilizing and re-allocating military resources.  It's hard to tell whether this is a good way to do it or not.

re: number 2, a few interesting recent developments in Iran and China,:

European powers will take the first step towards re-imposing international sanctions on Iran in the coming weeks if Tehran further violates the 2015 nuclear deal, diplomats said. The warning, an escalation of European pressure on Iran, puts the two sides on a collision course. A conflict is likely in early January, when Iran is set to announce fresh steps to breach the deal. Iranian officials say their moves respond to Europe’s failure to protect them from the impact of withering sanctions the U.S. imposed after President Trump withdrew from the nuclear accord last year. (via The Wall Street Journal)

Research into the recent uprising in Iran asserts: "Our study shows that the current wave of protest is geographically widespread and most likely motivated by more than acute economic pain. We found that 20.5 percent of all Iranian counties had at least one day of protest in this wave (89 out of 429). Economic grievances sparked the initial surge of action, but once the protests began, they appeared to activate deeper, preexisting dissatisfactions with the Islamic Republic as a whole. In fact, our results indicate that while the regime gained support following recent elections, specifically the 2017 presidential election, that support has since eroded." (via Foreign Affairs)

Click to expand...

 The financial woes of companies that carry off-balance-sheet debt for China's local governments are fueling growing alarm in Beijing about potential damage to an already cooling economy. Should a few local government financing vehicles default, a "chain reaction" could ensue, Ma Jun, a member of the People's Bank of China's policy board, warned in an interview with a financial newspaper affiliated with the People's Daily. (via Nikkei Asian Review)

Click to expand...

Long Ball Larry said:

re: number 2, a few interesting recent developments in Iran and China,:

Research into the recent uprising in Iran asserts: "Our study shows that the current wave of protest is geographically widespread and most likely motivated by more than acute economic pain. We found that 20.5 percent of all Iranian counties had at least one day of protest in this wave (89 out of 429). Economic grievances sparked the initial surge of action, but once the protests began, they appeared to activate deeper, preexisting dissatisfactions with the Islamic Republic as a whole. In fact, our results indicate that while the regime gained support following recent elections, specifically the 2017 presidential election, that support has since eroded." (via Foreign Affairs)

Click to expand...

Iran, some would advocate, has had the seedlings for a Western democracy more than any other country in the Middle East, but those same people seem to insist that our diplomacy towards Iran and our weirdly unsubtle non-embrace of Iranian populist movements towards overthrowing the clerisy has defeated us and them before they can even get to the plate. I remember the Green Movement of '08-'09 or so, but it never has seemed to materialize there. 

Who is Foreign Affairs wrote the article? Generally those come from people with an acute diagnostic skill and knowledge of the reasons why the situation is what it is. They're a little less than excellent on suggestions about what to do to make these countries more our allies and have workable international relations with them.

As for the broader question about President Trump's foreign policy, I have no idea. I think we'll need to wait ten or so years to see either the damage or benefit of the approaches, their efficacy, and their appropriate execution. Heck, the average person in the Middle East has a long historical memory just in casual conversation. It might take fifty to find out, kind of like how we found out that the religiously radicalized Wahabbist sects funded by Standard Oil in the 1920s to secure oil profits in Saudi Arabia was a bad, bad freaking idea come 2001.

bump

Trump didn't go looking for this - Iran brought it