|
Post by jdredd on Aug 30, 2018 3:42:12 GMT -5
As I said in the formerly "Polarized America" thread, I think there is too much whining and drama over our alleged differences, especially in foreign policy. Sorry, but I don't see much if any air between Obama and Trump when it comes to the rest of the world. I could get into specifics but not right now. Let's just say when it comes to foreign relations, from where I sit it looks like same wine, different bottle.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 13, 2018 3:09:05 GMT -5
We're halfway through the first term of the third President since 9/11 (Two Republicans and a Democrat), and our foreign policy still seems to be on autocruise following some bizarre logic I don't understand. And it shows no sign of changing in the near future, foreign poiicy not even talked about in this election year.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 13, 2018 9:16:03 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/opinion/trump-syria-idlib-assad.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage"The losers in this equation: Turkey, already groaning under the pressure of millions of Syrian refugees and a crumbling economy; Israel, whose repeated strikes against Iranian targets in Syria have dented but not denied Tehran’s ambitions; Europe, which could face yet another refugee crisis even as the effects of the last are felt in the resurgence of the far right; and the Syrian people, terrorized witnesses to the marriage of wickedness and indifference. And then there’s the United States, where two administrations have now allowed the Syrian crisis to become depressing testimony to the worthlessness of our word, the fickleness of our friendship and hollowness of our values. Donald Trump, loudly billing himself as Barack Obama’s opposite in every respect, has effectively adopted his predecessor’s worst foreign policy mistake. At least the Obama administration could privately justify a weak Syria policy as being consonant with their desire to strike a nuclear deal with Iran. Trump’s Syria policy lacks that dubious coherence: It seems to have no broader rationale other than the president’s knee-jerk isolationism, his deference to Vladimir Putin, his apparent belief that the only vital U.S. interest in Syria is the defeat of ISIS, and his occasional need to look tough by ordering minimally effective airstrikes."
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 15, 2018 11:04:37 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2018/09/14/us/politics/stoltenberg-heritage-foundation.html?action=click&module=In%20Other%20News&pgtype=Homepage&action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage"Some libertarian writers have been skeptical of expansion by NATO in the Balkans, arguing that the small countries there bring new security responsibilities for the United States, rather than bolstering American defense. At a speech on Friday at the conservative Heritage Foundation, Mr. Stoltenberg argued that NATO expansion bolsters defense by building stability in Europe. “NATO has helped to spread democratic values, free enterprise and stability to millions of people in the eastern part of Europe,” Mr. Stoltenberg said. “This represents a historic geopolitical shift that has benefited the United States and the world at large.” Sad that the only skepticism of our 70-year-old anti-Russian alliance is coming from the Libertarian cult. Once again, the left is MIA when it comes to foreign policy and sometimes even more hawkish than the right.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 18, 2018 0:09:47 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/opinion/democratic-party-cortez-foreign-policy.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=9&pgtype=sectionfrontAs the insurgent left wing of the Democratic Party captures headlines and wins votes, many of its supporters are coalescing around a growing set of policy priorities: universal health care, higher taxes on the rich, the abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But when it comes to matters of war and peace and to America’s place in the world, the left is either silent or confused. In the 2016 Democratic presidential primary campaign, Bernie Sanders did not make foreign policy a focus. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently dismissed questions about the Israel-Palestine conflict by claiming she was “not the expert on geopolitics on this issue.” And as other candidates across the United States scramble to get votes from self-declared socialists by, say, supporting single-payer health care, few feel the need to appeal to the left on foreign policy. To be fair, there are good reasons leftists haven’t grappled much with foreign policy. For one, there are few decision makers from whom they can learn: Since the early days of the Cold War, foreign policymaking has been dominated by a bipartisan commitment to militarism and American hegemony; those who depart from the consensus view have largely been kept out of the State Department, the Pentagon and other parts of the government. At the same time, the left itself lacks institutions dedicated to developing foreign policy ideas. While Republicans and moderate Democrats have a host of think tanks pushing interventionism, no corporation or billionaire has yet decided to fund a left-wing foreign policy think tank to which politicians could turn for advice." Here's a columnist suggesting the Democrats put some air between themselves and the Republicans when it comes to foreign policy. I wouldn't hold my breath.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 24, 2018 2:43:48 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2018/09/23/world/asia/china-us-trade-war.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage"On Monday, the United States will begin taxing $200 billion in imports from China, the biggest round of tariffs to take effect yet in an escalating trade war. President Trump says the measures are necessary to fight an economic model that requires American companies to hand over technology in exchange for market access and provides state subsidies to Chinese competitors. China’s strongman leader, Xi Jinping, presiding over an economy gaining quickly on the United States, has openly challenged American leadership abroad while dashing hopes of any political thaw at home. During this time, both Republicans and Democrats in Washington have turned on Beijing, accusing it of imperial ambitions in Asia, aggression in disputed waters, persecution of ethnic minorities and unscrupulous trade policies aimed at dominating the industries of the future." More evidence of the sameness of the foreign policy of both parties. What's my point? Not much, but it is why both parties suck, and I will remain Green.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Nov 22, 2018 13:45:45 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2018/11/21/opinion/trump-saudi-arabia-khashoggi.htmlThere’s not much Republicans and Democrats agree on nowadays, but President Trump’s expression of support for Saudi Arabia on Tuesday in the wake of the Jamal Khashoggi killing managed to unite them. Democratic and Republican leaders declared that the president’s statement was dishonest, morally blinkered and strategically obtuse. True, Mr. Trump’s sidestepping of reports that the C.I.A. believes that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the killing as “Maybe he did and maybe he didn’t!” was jarring. But every president since Harry Truman has aligned with unsavory Middle Eastern rulers in the service of national interests. The difference here is that Mr. Trump seemed unapologetic about this state of affairs with only a passing nod to the affront to our values that Mr. Khashoggi’s murder represents. That’s nothing to cheer. But it is vitally important to evaluate the policy on its merits more than its mode of expression. And the truth is that on the big strategic questions, Mr. Trump is cleareyed and right." Telling like it is. A Democrat President would probably whitewash the Saudi despots too.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jan 12, 2019 4:46:09 GMT -5
So I'm wondering: Will foreign policy be a non-issue in 2020 like it was in 2016? I have little reason to think otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jan 15, 2019 17:15:53 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/opinion/us-china-trade.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage"Rather than across-the-board tariffs, Chinese companies receiving stolen or coerced intellectual property should not be allowed to do business with firms in America or, with our allies’ cooperation, in Europe and Japan. The United States should also intervene to halt foreign investment in any technology that assists the Chinese Army or contributes to internal repression and limit the access to global markets of any Chinese company that is tied to human rights abuses and army modernization. Taking these actions would require an enormous amount of intelligence collection by American security agencies as well as crucial information from American companies. The latter is difficult to obtain: Out of fear of Chinese retribution, the foreign business community will cooperate only if there is a clear, bipartisan and long-term commitment by the American government." Here are some hacks from the sleazy American Enterprise Institute trying to keep together a bipartisan foreign policy while trying to up the belligerence toward China.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jan 17, 2019 2:11:06 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/world/middleeast/isis-attack-syria-troops.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=undefined"Wednesday’s attack revived the debate over Mr. Trump’s strategy. “I strongly urge the president to forcefully respond and ensure we do not withdraw our troops until ISIS is completely destroyed,” Representative Michael McCaul of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement. “The fight against ISIS is clearly not over,” said Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. He said the bombing “is a stark reminder that the Trump administration needs a clearly developed and articulated strategy to secure the gains we have made in the fight.” Now for me, this is one more reason to get out of Syria. But for politicians of both parties, who are in the pocket of the Pentagon, this is a reason to stay longer. A pox on both party's houses.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Feb 5, 2019 3:03:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Feb 14, 2019 22:57:10 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2019/02/14/opinion/china-economy.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage"I’ve always thought Americans would come together when we realized that we faced a dangerous foreign foe. And lo and behold, now we have one: China. It’s become increasingly clear that China is a grave economic, technological and intellectual threat to the United States and the world order. And sure enough, beneath the TV bluster of daily politics, Americans are beginning to join together. Mike Pence and Elizabeth Warren can sound shockingly similar when talking about China’s economic policy. Nancy Pelosi and Republicans sound shockingly similar when they talk about Chinese human rights abuses. Conservative and liberal policy thinkers can sound shockingly similar when they start talking about how to respond to the challenge from China." Has Mr. Brooks been sleeping under a rock all his life? "Americans are beginning to join together"? How often have they disagreed on foreign policy? Not since Vietnam. But as always, my question is: Will the Millenials buy this invented confrontation? Or are they more cosmopolitan than the hick Boomers?
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Mar 26, 2019 2:24:53 GMT -5
www.nationalreview.com/corner/with-muellers-report-complete-will-democrats-remain-russia-hawks/"With the Russia investigation no longer likely to lead to criminal charges for Trump or his family, and no longer likely to lay out an easily justifiable argument for impeachment, one has to wonder if Democrats will remain so hawkish on Russia. If Democrats meant what they said, they will continue to want the toughest-possible sanctions on Moscow, as much aid to Ukraine as possible, call for the removal of Russian forces from Crimea, showcase Russia’s hideous human-rights record, expose Vladimir Putin’s long list of abominable crimes, and fully embrace a foreign policy of deterrence. They would want as much joint training with the Baltic states as possible. If Democrats remain Russia hawks, it will be a pleasant surprise. But if they lose interest in Putin and Russia, it will be further proof that they only saw the topic as a useful tool against Trump, and never had all that much concern about Eastern Europe." It would make me very happy if the Dumbocrats dropped their lame Putin-bashing now.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 9, 2019 16:15:38 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/opinion/turkey-united-states-f35conflict.htmlBy the end of the year, Turkey will have either F-35 advanced fighter aircraft on its soil or a Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile defense system. It will not have both. The choice made by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey will have profound consequences for his country’s place in the world, its relationship with the United States and its standing in NATO. The F-35 program is the world’s largest fifth-generation fighter aircraft program, with more than a trillion dollars in investment from a dozen international partners, including Turkey, and customers. In large part, the ability of the United States and its allies to maintain a military advantage in the skies is riding on the program." "Turkey has legitimate air defense needs. The United States, since 2012, has offered the Patriot air defense system as an alternative to the S-400, but Turkey has rejected that offer. With the S-400 scheduled to arrive in Turkey in July and the F-35s scheduled to arrive in November, it is time for President Erdogan to choose. It is our hope he will choose to abandon the S-400, defend Turkish skies with the Patriot system and save the F-35 arrangement. If President Erdogan fails to make this choice and accepts delivery of the S-400, Turkey will be sanctioned as required by United States law under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. Sanctions will hit Turkey’s economy hard — rattling international markets, scaring away foreign direct investment and crippling Turkey’s aerospace and defense industry." Oh, this is precious! Two Republican and two Democratic senators whining to Turkey about their choice of a Russki air defense system. And they refer to the laughably titled "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act", no doubt passed with bipartisan support. And by the way, Turkey, we will sell you a replacement system PLUS our pricey F-35's. Will Erdrogan give into this bullying? Perhaps he will realize how NATO has outlived its usefulness to his country. I can hardly wait to see!
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 23, 2019 14:37:46 GMT -5
As Trump tightens the screws on Iran, I know there is one thing I won't hear: A peep of dissent from the Democrats. No one wants to stick up for Iran. It's much safer to whine about climate change.
|
|