US Foreign Policy Trump47 | Threatens all hell to break loose in Gaza; won't rule out military force in Panama, Greenland, threatens economic force

[CRHeel94]

I'm not really sure. My assumption is that he kept a close eye on places relevant to his Florida constituents. I know he's made statements about Israel (clip making the rounds today) in the past which makes sense with the large Jewish population in Florida.

His resume is light on foreign policy compared to some other GOP Secretaries of State.

He is very much aligned with my selfish interests (probably the best guy to turn up the heat on those three countries). As I've written on other threads, the US LatAm policy has been terrible since 9/11 and created a dangerous power vacuum that have created ripe conditions for all sorts of security concerns.

Not sure he is great for other areas of operation. And I'm not 100% sure Trump will go all the way with him. He's been a good soldier in this election cycle, but I can see other factions of MAGA freaking out.

 

[Paine]

I'm not really sure. My assumption is that he kept a close eye on places relevant to his Florida constituents. I know he's made statements about Israel (clip making the rounds today) in the past which makes sense with the large Jewish population in Florida.

His resume is light on foreign policy compared to some other GOP Secretaries of State.

He is very much aligned with my selfish interests (probably the best guy to turn up the heat on those three countries). As I've written on other threads, the US LatAm policy has been terrible since 9/11 and created a dangerous power vacuum that have created ripe conditions for all sorts of security concerns.

Not sure he is great for other areas of operation. And I'm not 100% sure Trump will go all the way with him. He's been a good soldier in this election cycle, but I can see other factions of MAGA freaking out.

Seems like some other factions are already freaking out over it. A whole “Stop Pompeo!” movement just to end up with Rubio. The neocons are back, baby!

 

[ZenMode]

Mitch McConnell Appears to Swing at Trump—US 'Will Not Be Made Great Again'

Outgoing Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell appeared to criticize President-elect Donald Trump's foreign policies during a speech on Saturday.

The Kentucky senator spoke out against "isolationism" and praised the "power of alliances" while accepting an honorary "Peace Through Strength" award at the Reagan National Defense Forum. Around the same time, in an interview with NBC News' Meet the Press over the weekend, Trump said he was open to pulling the U.S. out of NATO.

Mitch McConnell appears to swing at Trump—US "will not be made great again"

The Kentucky senator emphasized the need for the U.S. to demonstrate greater commitment to alliances such as NATO

www.newsweek.com

 

[ChileG]

“…
During the call, which Trump took from his resort in Florida, he advised the Russian president not to escalate the war in Ukraine and reminded him of Washington’s sizable military presence in Europe, said a person familiar with the call, who, like others interviewed for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.

The two men discussed the goal of peace on the European continent and Trump expressed an interest in follow-up conversations to discuss “the resolution of Ukraine’s war soon,” several of the people said. …”

I said I would be keeping score as we go along. If Trump was indeed this firm with Putin, then that is unexpected and I will give him props for that. However, final grades are based on what is actually achieved.
I hope Trump is able to help bring about an acceptable resolution. Zelenskyy was wise to love bomb Trump, as that is how you get on Trump’s good side.

 

[AlbionAmerican]

Seems like some other factions are already freaking out over it. A whole “Stop Pompeo!” movement just to end up with Rubio. The neocons are back, baby!

Military hawks and neocons are two different factions. Iraq War basically in the public consciousness intermixed these two interest groups, but historically speaking these two weren't necessarily aligned on the same interests. It might be hard to believe but the old school neocons like Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol were against the Vietnam War, which just goes to show how these people work. Military hawks are almost always pro-war because war justifies their existence along with the entire MIC apparatus, whereas neocons are basically power hungry psychopaths who run think tanks, but because of their obsession with power (and how power often shifts in America according to the issue of the day) the neocons will change shirts all the time, which explains why so many have also become Democrats in the Trump era. They sell their soul to glom onto power and have no problem finding or inventing ways to justify why they should control the conversation / institutions / levers of power. In many ways they're for oligarchic totalitarianism, that is their fundamental ideology. Military ends aren't their primary avenue for achieving total oligarchy, so in many ways a person like Pompeo is a more trustworthy figure because at least you know where he stands whereas a Rubio (which btw, I dont think he's necessarily a neocon, he's more of just a straight up prostitute who will be controlled by whomever controls him at any one point in time, so it used to be the neocons who controlled him and now its Trump who will) isnt someone smart enough to create a neocon-friendly agenda on his own. The choice of Rubio seems to be a signal more about how Trump intends to focus on Latin America above anything related to neocons.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Military hawks and neocons are two different factions. Iraq War basically in the public consciousness intermixed these two interest groups, but historically speaking these two weren't necessarily aligned on the same interests. It might be hard to believe but the old school neocons like Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol were against the Vietnam War, which just goes to show how these people work. Military hawks are almost always pro-war because war justifies their existence along with the entire MIC apparatus, whereas neocons are basically power hungry psychopaths who run think tanks, but because of their obsession with power (and how power often shifts in America according to the issue of the day) the neocons will change shirts all the time, which explains why so many have also become Democrats in the Trump era. They sell their soul to glom onto power and have no problem finding or inventing ways to justify why they should control the conversation / institutions / levers of power. In many ways they're for oligarchic totalitarianism, that is their fundamental ideology. Military ends aren't their primary avenue for achieving total oligarchy, so in many ways a person like Pompeo is a more trustworthy figure because at least you know where he stands whereas a Rubio (which btw, I dont think he's necessarily a neocon, he's more of just a straight up prostitute who will be controlled by whomever controls him at any one point in time, so it used to be the neocons who controlled him and now its Trump who will) isnt someone smart enough to create a neocon-friendly agenda on his own. The choice of Rubio seems to be a signal more about how Trump intends to focus on Latin America above anything related to neocons.

Yeah. I certainly don't think Trump is a peacenik after assassinating that Iranian general. I think Trump is less willing to intervene militarily in things that he doesn't think are in America's interests and he defines those interests much more narrowly than a lot of folks in Washington.

If I had to guess, he won't intervene in any conflicts in Africa, Southeast or Central Asia, or the Middle East unless Israel asks for help.

I think the big questions is how he would handle any Russian expansion into the Baltic countries and how he would respond to any Chinese attack on Taiwan. Would not be shocked if he didn't intervene or intervene with a token Force. I also wouldn't be at all surprised if he rolled back NATO or maybe created NATO 2.0 to decrease the number of countries in the fold.

 

[finesse]

Not sure who would trust us enough to join us if we did that.

 

[rodoheel]

Yeah. I certainly don't think Trump is a peacenik after assassinating that Iranian general. I think Trump is less willing to intervene militarily in things that he doesn't think are in America's interests and he defines those interests much more narrowly than a lot of folks in Washington.

If I had to guess, he won't intervene in any conflicts in Africa, Southeast or Central Asia, or the Middle East unless Israel asks for help.

I think the big questions is how he would handle any Russian expansion into the Baltic countries and how he would respond to any Chinese attack on Taiwan. Would not be shocked if he didn't intervene or intervene with a token Force. I also wouldn't be at all surprised if he rolled back NATO or maybe created NATO 2.0 to decrease the number of countries in the fold.

Hard to imagine anything stupider than kicking willing members out of our own mutual-defense pact

 

[WaynetheDrain]

Yeah. I certainly don't think Trump is a peacenik after assassinating that Iranian general. I think Trump is less willing to intervene militarily in things that he doesn't think are in America's interests and he defines those interests much more narrowly than a lot of folks in Washington.

If I had to guess, he won't intervene in any conflicts in Africa, Southeast or Central Asia, or the Middle East unless Israel asks for help.

I think the big questions is how he would handle any Russian expansion into the Baltic countries and how he would respond to any Chinese attack on Taiwan. Would not be shocked if he didn't intervene or intervene with a token Force. I also wouldn't be at all surprised if he rolled back NATO or maybe created NATO 2.0 to decrease the number of countries in the fold.

NATO 2.0. Lol.

Who would be in that group? Hungary, Russia, and us?

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Hard to imagine anything stupider than kicking willing members out of our own mutual-defense pact

It's not like those folks are free. We pay a lot of tax dollars to protect the Lithuania's And Montenegro's of the world. And in return we get some half willing but not particularly useful allies. The US lost over 2,000 soldiers killed in Afghanistan. Lithuania lost one. And it's not just a story of relatively poor or developing countries. Belgium lost one soldier. Portugal lost two soldiers. These were all countries that sent a token force and limited them to things like logistics and training the Afghan army, not infantry operations. They aren't the only NATO allies. I can't imagine a war where we protect Lithuania where the US would lose one soldier proportional to our population.

So while some of these countries might be willing members of a defense pact, they don't really consider it a mutual defense pact.

 

[ChileG]

You are literally trusting Russian propaganda in making that comment, yet one of your revered sources of information publishes a story where trump is being firm, direct, and strong with Putin and that is your take on the info nycfan has provided so far? Score. Trump 1. Putin 0

You don’t get points for pre-game smack talk.

 

[ChapelHillSooner]

Trump called Trudeau a governor. Add that to the comments about making Canada the 51st state and his general complaints about the northern border, I am beginning to wonder if there isn't something there to the joke I made about Trump invading Canada.

 

[AlbionAmerican]

Trump called Trudeau a governor. Add that to the comments about making Canada the 51st state and his general complaints about the northern border, I am beginning to wonder if there isn't something there to the joke I made about Trump invading Canada.

Trump doesn’t need to invade Canada to assert America’s dominance over them, the DOD already has de facto control over Canada due to them falling under the umbrella of NORTHCOM’s strategic command responsibilities for all matters related to air, sea and land defense.

 

[rodoheel]

It's not like those folks are free. We pay a lot of tax dollars to protect the Lithuania's And Montenegro's of the world. And in return we get some half willing but not particularly useful allies. The US lost over 2,000 soldiers killed in Afghanistan. Lithuania lost one. And it's not just a story of relatively poor or developing countries. Belgium lost one soldier. Portugal lost two soldiers. These were all countries that sent a token force and limited them to things like logistics and training the Afghan army, not infantry operations. They aren't the only NATO allies. I can't imagine a war where we protect Lithuania where the US would lose one soldier proportional to our population.

So while some of these countries might be willing members of a defense pact, they don't really consider it a mutual defense pact.

The value in having Lithuania and Montenegro and not that we need or want their troops to defend us. The value to US interests is in having as many friendly partners who depend on us as possible. Adept use of "soft power" through things like NATO, foreign aid, etc is hugely beneficial to US foreign policy (something that easily pays back the relatively paltry sums we spend) and is one of the major reasons we have historically succeeded in spreading our influence around the world. Kicking countries out of NATO, on the other hand, will (1) turn happy partners into disgruntled non-partners at best (and ultimately enemies at worst), and (2) send those countries elsewhere to look for partners, protectors, and friendly relationships. It is a really bad, self-defeating idea. Even when leaving aside the strategic implications - that these countries are strategically located next to Russia, one of the major potential foreign antagonists with the possibility to start a global conflagration.

 

[Callatoroy]

You don’t get points for pre-game smack talk.

I would agree given the red lines that obama and biden drew that were ignored. But, a new guy is riding into town and he seems batshit crazy. So, other countries might not know just how to take trump's words. That doubt can be useful to the US.

As for NATO and the left's fear of trump pulling out, he has already come out and said if everyone is pulling their weight it wouldn't be in our interest to leave NATO.

 

[ChileG]

I would agree given the red lines that obama and biden drew that were ignored. But, a new guy is riding into town and he seems batshit crazy. So, other countries might not know just how to take trump's words. That doubt can be useful to the US.

As for NATO and the left's fear of trump pulling out, he has already come out and said if everyone is pulling their weight it wouldn't be in our interest to leave NATO.

And you should agree also based on umpteen things Trump has claimed were going to happen that never came to fruition. You know, since we are talking about Trump.

But, it’s good we agree the score is currently Trump 0, Putin 0.

 

[nycfan]

 

[gtyellowjacket]

The value in having Lithuania and Montenegro and not that we need or want their troops to defend us. The value to US interests is in having as many friendly partners who depend on us as possible. Adept use of "soft power" through things like NATO, foreign aid, etc is hugely beneficial to US foreign policy (something that easily pays back the relatively paltry sums we spend) and is one of the major reasons we have historically succeeded in spreading our influence around the world. Kicking countries out of NATO, on the other hand, will (1) turn happy partners into disgruntled non-partners at best (and ultimately enemies at worst), and (2) send those countries elsewhere to look for partners, protectors, and friendly relationships. It is a really bad, self-defeating idea. Even when leaving aside the strategic implications - that these countries are strategically located next to Russia, one of the major potential foreign antagonists with the possibility to start a global conflagration.

Foreign aid may be a relatively paltry sum but our defense spending is just the opposite. And a fair amount of that defense spending is needed because we are protecting those allies.

So what does that spending get us? Influence for what? Countries we have to defend right next to a large enemy? The juice isn't worth the squeeze.
Folks on here are ridiculing Trump's plan of cutting spending because this or that policy won't make a dent. I agree. But rolling back our defense commitments can most definitely make a dent, and its dismissed because we don't want to lose some not all that useful allies. I think the trade-offs are worth it.

 

[finesse]

Foreign aid may be a relatively paltry sum but our defense spending is just the opposite. And a fair amount of that defense spending is needed because we are protecting those allies.

So what does that spending get us? Influence for what? Countries we have to defend right next to a large enemy? The juice isn't worth the squeeze.
Folks on here are ridiculing Trump's plan of cutting spending because this or that policy won't make a dent. I agree. But rolling back our defense commitments can most definitely make a dent, and its dismissed because we don't want to lose some not all that useful allies. I think the trade-offs are worth it.

Just so you'll have a clue, we only pay about 16% of the cost of NATO which is about the same as Germany.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Just so you'll have a clue, we only pay about 16% of the cost of NATO which is about the same as Germany.

Sure. I'm sure all that defense spending and those bases in Europe are to protect Iowa from a Red Dawn style invasion.

Right now the US defense spending is 2/3 of all of the NATO country's defense spending. That's a little misleading because we have interests in the Pacific and South America but quite a bit of that defense spending goes to protect Europe.