[ International ] [ Main Menu ]
56701
From: mitra, [DNS_Address]
Subject: expect a total overhaul of U.S. foreign and military policy
URL: https://www.thenation.com/article/world/trump-foreign-policy-war-military/
|
after some introduction: ********** How will Donald Trump and his appointees address these and other global dangers facing the United States? December 9, 2024 The Dangers of Trump’s Foreign Policy Strategic incoherence and factionalism reign. Michael T. Klare Share Donald Trump salutes as he walks to Air Force One prior to departing from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, March 2, 2017. (Saul Loeb / AFP via Getty Images) As Donald Trump and his associates have repeatedly stated, we can expect a total overhaul of U.S. foreign and military policy once the new administration assumes office in January. Rather than serve as a global leader and the world’s policeman, they insist, the United States will now eschew foreign entanglements and place its own national interests above all others. As suggested by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Trump’s pick for secretary of state, “responsible American foreign policy must be based not on idealistic fantasies but on pragmatic decisions that prioritize the core national interests of the United States.” As part of this epochal shift, the United States will review all its foreign alliances—including those with Japan, South Korea, and the NATO countries—and only retain those which are both self-financing and directly beneficial to U.S. security and prosperity. As part of this shift, Ukraine will most likely be compelled to sign a peace deal favorable to Russia to continue receiving U.S. aid, while Israel will be provided with even more U.S. arms than it receives at present. To ensure docility on the part of potential adversaries, such as China and Iran, the U.S. military will be bolstered even beyond its current colossal strength. Such an approach, Trump’s sycophants have told us, will usher in a more peaceful world than that overseen by President Biden. With the global defense of democracy and human rights and other such “idealistic fantasies” no longer driving U.S. policy, we will be spared from involvement in any new “forever wars” of the sort that have so depleted and demoralized the military. Rather, the leaders of every foreign nation—whether ally or former foe—will trek to Washington for an audience with Mr. Trump, seeking the best deals they can extract from him. How realistic is this vision? A retreat from global policing certainly has considerable appeal, and economic bargaining—however harmful to the inhabitants of countries with less to offer Trump’s billionaire cronies—is preferable to military coercion. However, the Trumpist foreign policy outlook is riddled with contradictions and savage impulses, suggesting that achieving a more peaceful world will prove much harder than he and his allies ever imagined. The Dangers Bequeathed by Biden To fully appreciate the risks posed by the incoming administration’s strategic incoherence, it is important to first review the global leadership model favored by the outgoing administration and the dangers it will leave behind. Current Issue Cover of December 2024 Issue December 2024 Issue In President Biden’s view, the United States is ordained by its history, size, and superior values to exercise leadership over the democratic, rules-abiding nations of the world and to prevent, as much as possible, the rise of authoritarian, rules-breaking regimes. This required, in the administration’s view, the creation of an interlocking network of U.S.-armed, pro-Western states surrounding China, Russia, and Iran. When elements of this network have come under attack— whether by Russia through its February 2022 invasion of Ukraine or by Hamas with its October 7 raid on Israel— the administration responded with immediate military support. While these Biden initiatives have not resulted in significant U.S. military involvement on the ground, there have been many close calls, and the risk of miscalculation remains unabated. In Ukraine, for example, the administration has allowed the delivery of ever-more capable weapons to Ukrainian forces and their use in attacks ever deeper into Russian territory. In the most recent of these moves, the administration gave Ukraine permission to employ the U.S.-supplied Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) for strikes far into Russia. The Russians, in turn, fired a nuclear-capable intermediate-range ballistic missile into Ukraine, demonstrating a capacity to devastate Ukraine and its NATO backers with nuclear munitions. Russian President Vladimir Putin also used this occasion to announce a shift in Russia’s nuclear weapons policy, allowing for the use of such munitions against states that aid a Russian adversary, such as Ukraine. The Nation Weekly Fridays. A weekly digest of the best of our coverage. By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You may unsubscribe or adjust your preferences at any time. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Sign Up In the Middle East, President Biden has authorized far greater military involvement than most Americans realize. In addition to the forces already based in Syria (supposedly to prevent the regeneration of ISIS) and the Persian Gulf area (to ensure the uninterrupted flow of Persian Gulf oil), Biden has ordered the deployment of an aircraft carrier battle group in the region along with additional submarines, missile destroyers, and fighter squadrons. As in the case of Ukraine, these moves have not yet resulted in direct U.S. military involvement (except for helping to defend Israel against Iranian missile strikes), but the risk of such engagement is bound to grow if the U.S. joins Israel in conducting a new round of air strikes on Iran or intervenes more directly in the internal strife in Syria. Although President Biden stated on December 8 that the fall of longtime Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad was a “fundamental act of justice” after decades of repression, he also noted that it represented “a moment of risk and uncertainty” for the Mideast and affirmed that the US would support the region “should any threat arrive from Syria during this period of transition.” As if to highlight this threat, the US Central Command announced that it had conducted airstrikes against 75 Islamic State encampments in central Syria, with warnings of additional strikes to come. In Asia, the Biden administration has worked methodically to establish a chain of U.S.-backed states surrounding China with the explicit goal of curtailing China’s economic, technological, and military rise. In consonance with policies first devised by Mike Pompeo while serving as secretary of state during Trump’s first tenure as president, it has signaled strong support for Taiwan in its efforts to prevent an armed takeover by Beijing. To demonstrate Washington’s intent to fight China should such an assault occur, the administration has stepped up U.S. air and naval patrols in the Taiwan Strait and nearby areas—moves that have prompted similar military maneuvers by China and increased the risk of a full-scale conflict. The Trumpian Foreign Policy Makeover The question now arises: How will Donald Trump and his appointees address these and other global dangers facing the United States? Popular “swipe left below to view more authors”Swipe → What Was the Biggest Factor in Kamala Harris’s Defeat? What Was the Biggest Factor in Kamala Harris’s Defeat? The Debate / Isabella M. Weber and Elie Mystal What Luigi Mangione and Daniel Penny Are Telling Us About AmericaWhat Luigi Mangione and Daniel Penny Are Telling Us About America Caleb Brennan Luigi Mangione Is America Whether We Like It or NotLuigi Mangione Is America Whether We Like It or Not Natalie Shure No, Kamala Harris Staffers Did Not Run a “Flawless” CampaignNo, Kamala Harris Staffers Did Not Run a “Flawless” Campaign Jeet Heer There is no easy answer to this question, as Mr. Trump did not discuss foreign policy at length during the campaign—except on the topic of tariffs on imported goods, which he has promised to increase—and his staff and associates often issue contradictory statements. We do know that he intends to abandon the global leadership role espoused by President Biden and to reassess U.S. military ties with NATO countries and other key allies, especially Ukraine. On these matters, most key figures in Trump’s circle agree. But on other issues and in the implementation of these core objectives, there is a considerable disparity of views. Some of Trump’s appointees are likely to prioritize America’s economic interests (and especially those of Trump’s billionaire cronies), while others, of a more ideological streak, are likely to favor a tough stance on China and Iran. The first group—call them the pragmatists—seek a business-friendly, transactional world in which U.S. corporations will prosper and America’s top competitors, especially China, will fall behind. The second group—call them the ideologues—care less about wealth-building and more about mauling America’s enemies. These two camps are likely to clash over critical international issues, creating a policy turbulence that will determine whether Trump’s promise of peace will ever materialize or if the unresolved conflicts of the Biden era (or any new ones that might arise) will spiral out of control. The first such upheaval is likely to occur over the war in Ukraine. Trump has pledged to “settle” the war before he has been inaugurated, without explaining how, while his running mate, JD Vance, has proposed a peace agreement that would give Russia control over approximately one-fifth of Ukrainian territory and deny Ukraine membership in NATO—an apparent win for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Both Vance and Keith Kellogg, Trump’s choice as special envoy to Ukraine and Russia, have also suggested that U.S. aid to Ukraine be curtailed or terminated if Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky refuses to accept this outcome. For many in Europe, Russia, and Ukraine itself, such an outcome might seem preferable to the daily loss of life and material destruction now occurring in the war zone. But several vital questions arise about this scenario. If Russia emerges from the war with a revitalized war machine and if Ukraine is refused entry into NATO and denied adequate arms aid (or other such “security guarantees”) in the years to come, there will be little to prevent Moscow from resuming its drive to absorb the bulk of Ukrainian territory at some future date, causing even greater turmoil and devastation. Nor will NATO’s European members be safe from future Russian probes and provocations—a danger that would prove even more acute if Trump dilutes or terminates U.S. participation in NATO. A weakened NATO and a reinvigorated Russia would also prove a boon to China, undercutting the efforts of Marco Rubio and other “China hawks” in the new administration to isolate and enfeeble that country. How these contending impulses play out will determine whether a cease-fire agreement, when and if adopted, will promote stability in Europe or result in greater tension and conflict. Middle East Challenges The conflicts in the Middle East will prove another immediate and formidable challenge for the incoming administration. During the campaign, Trump vowed, “You’re going to have peace in the Middle East” once he assumed the presidency. But achieving peace in that region could prove very difficult. Many in his circle favor giving Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a free hand to decimate what is left of Gaza and to claim sovereignty over the West Bank—a move certain to provoke continuing violence in both areas. This could also jeopardize Trump’s long-stated wish to arrange a diplomatic rapprochement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which has vowed to abjure any such outcome unless it allows for the establishment of a Palestinian state. The pro-Israel ideologues are also certain to call for unrestrained attacks on Iran should it undertake a new round of missile strikes at Israel. (Iran’s senior leaders have pledged retaliation for Israel’s October 26 air attacks on Iranian military facilities, but have not indicated when that might occur.) Any new Iranian missile barrage would almost certainly prompt Israel to mount a fresh round of attacks on Iran, this time targeting oil and nuclear facilities that were exempted from attack on October 26, largely in response to pressure from the Biden administration. (“That’s the craziest thing I’ve ever heard,” Trump said of the decision to exempt those facilities.) An unrestrained attack of this sort would no doubt prompt Tehran to launch yet more missile barrages at Israel and/or to accelerate its efforts to manufacture a functioning nuclear weapon. (The Iranians are thought capable of enriching enough uranium for such a bomb in just a few months, should a decision be made to do so.) Either move could prompt direct U.S. military involvement, including extensive engagement with Iranian forces. Will Trump try to avert such an outcome (which might well result in another “forever war” of the type he has pledged to avoid), or will he bend to pressure from the pro-Israel ideologues and approve a joint U.S.-Israeli drive to demolish Iran’s nuclear capabilities? While the president-elect appears sympathetic to such drastic action, he is also likely to face counter-pressures from those among his appointees who seek increased U.S. ties with (and investments in) Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf monarchies—endeavors that would likely be stymied by another Middle Eastern war. Which of these contending views ultimately prevails will, to a large degree, determine whether Trump succeeds in bringing peace to the region or presides over ever-increasing levels of violence. Navigating the Inconsistencies What is true of the Trump administration’s likely moves on Ukraine, the Middle East, and China is also true of most other U.S. overseas relations: While the president may exude unity of purpose, those around him are divided into contending factions, ensuring unpredictable and often incoherent outcomes. In such an environment, rash and inflammatory moves are to be expected, with unforeseen and possibly catastrophic consequences. How might antiwar, human rights, climate action, and other progressive movements address this situation? Direct pressure on the Trump administration at this stage appears to have little prospect of inducing change. Mr. Trump believes he has won an incontestable mandate to govern as he sees fit, and is unlikely to be swayed by appeals or protests coming from his opponents. Consequently, other strategies will be needed to effect meaningful change in this critical area. Based on this brief analysis, it would appear that the greatest obstacle to the full enactment of Trump’s agenda comes not from Democrats or the Left, but rather from divisions within his own ruling circle. Those of us on the outside cannot play a direct role in these internal disputes, but we can seek to exploit them when advantageous to do so. None of us, for example, are likely to benefit from increased U.S. economic ties with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates; yet if achieving such an outcome will increase the prospects for a Palestinian state and reduce the risk of a new war in the Middle East, we might support such efforts where appropriate. Likewise, none of us probably sells cars in China or is a major corporate beneficiary of U.S.-China trade; yet again, we should do what we can to advocate mutually beneficial trade relations with China and highlight the economic risks of a U.S.-China war. The same approach can be applied to other foreign policy issues. Donald Trump may appear all-powerful, and he certainly holds a lot of powerful cards. But his rule—like that of other potentates over the ages—will be characterized by debilitating internal disputes among his power- seeking cronies. We should become intense students of these disputes and seek opportunities to make progress within them. """"***** Seek opportunities?? |
Responses:
[56722] [56703] [56704] [56707] [56723] [56733] [56705] [56706]
56722
From: chaskuchar@stcharlesmo, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: expect a total overhaul of U.S. foreign and military policy
|
we have been losing face in the biden years. trump can't do any worse. we are in wwIII so we need knew thoughts on the war. we will be trying to recover from the earthquakes anyway. |
Responses:
None
56703
From: akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: yes, Biden has primed the pump for a continuous flow of war & treasure
|
reposting excerpt: "The Dangers Bequeathed by Biden To fully appreciate the risks posed by the incoming administration’s strategic incoherence, it is important to first review the global leadership model favored by the outgoing administration and the dangers it will leave behind. In President Biden’s view, the United States is ordained by its history, size, and superior values to exercise leadership over the democratic, rules-abiding nations of the world and to prevent, as much as possible, the rise of authoritarian, rules-breaking regimes. This required, in the administration’s view, the creation of an interlocking network of U.S.-armed, pro-Western states surrounding China, Russia, and Iran. When elements of this network have come under attack—whether by Russia through its February 2022 invasion of Ukraine or by Hamas with its October 7 raid on Israel—the administration responded with immediate military support. While these Biden initiatives have not resulted in significant U.S. military involvement on the ground, there have been many close calls, and the risk of miscalculation remains unabated. In Ukraine, for example, the administration has allowed the delivery of ever- more capable weapons to Ukrainian forces and their use in attacks ever deeper into Russian territory. In the most recent of these moves, the administration gave Ukraine permission to employ the U.S.-supplied Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) for strikes far into Russia. The Russians, in turn, fired a nuclear-capable intermediate-range ballistic missile into Ukraine, demonstrating a capacity to devastate Ukraine and its NATO backers with nuclear munitions. Russian President Vladimir Putin also used this occasion to announce a shift in Russia’s nuclear weapons policy, allowing for the use of such munitions against states that aid a Russian adversary, such as Ukraine. In the Middle East, President Biden has authorized far greater military involvement than most Americans realize. In addition to the forces already based in Syria (supposedly to prevent the regeneration of ISIS) and the Persian Gulf area (to ensure the uninterrupted flow of Persian Gulf oil), Biden has ordered the deployment of an aircraft carrier battle group in the region along with additional submarines, missile destroyers, and fighter squadrons. As in the case of Ukraine, these moves have not yet resulted in direct U.S. military involvement (except for helping to defend Israel against Iranian missile strikes), but the risk of such engagement is bound to grow if the U.S. joins Israel in conducting a new round of air strikes on Iran or intervenes more directly in the internal strife in Syria. Although President Biden stated on December 8 that the fall of longtime Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad was a “fundamental act of justice” after decades of repression, he also noted that it represented “a moment of risk and uncertainty” for the Mideast and affirmed that the US would support the region “should any threat arrive from Syria during this period of transition.” As if to highlight this threat, the US Central Command announced that it had conducted airstrikes against 75 Islamic State encampments in central Syria, with warnings of additional strikes to come. In Asia, the Biden administration has worked methodically to establish a chain of U.S.-backed states surrounding China with the explicit goal of curtailing China’s economic, technological, and military rise. In consonance with policies first devised by Mike Pompeo while serving as secretary of state during Trump’s first tenure as president, it has signaled strong support for Taiwan in its efforts to prevent an armed takeover by Beijing. To demonstrate Washington’s intent to fight China should such an assault occur, the administration has stepped up U.S. air and naval patrols in the Taiwan Strait and nearby areas—moves that have prompted similar military maneuvers by China and increased the risk of a full-scale conflict. The Trumpian Foreign Policy Makeover The question now arises: How will Donald Trump and his appointees address these and other global dangers facing the United States?" |
56704
From: mitra, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: yes, Biden has primed the pump for a continuous flow of war &...
|
Yes, Biden "bequeathed" complications, no less than what had been "bequeathed" to him... and the previous presidents, each in their turn. Don't you think the demonization of Biden is a curious bend in the history of the Middle East, so bereft of those who appear to care for so many in need ?? Looking for demons there one must take care not to trip over the piles in the streets. |
56707
From: ao, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: yes, Biden has primed the pump for a continuous flow of war &...
|
"Looking for demons there one must take care not to trip over the piles in the streets" I don't think she cares as much as she loves wallowing in it. |
56723
From: chaskuchar@stcharlesmo, [DNS_Address]
Subject: TROLLING nt
| nt |
Responses:
[56733]
56733
From: ao, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: TROLLING nt
| Stick to your fairytales Charlie. |
Responses:
None
56705
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: yes, Biden has primed the pump for a continuous flow of war &...
big piles...
|
Responses:
[56706]
56706
From: mitra, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: yes, Biden has primed the pump for a continuous flow of war &...
|
Yes. That, too. |
Responses:
None
[ International ] [ Main Menu ]