From isolationism to interventionism

[dreamville-bg.livejournal.com]

Straight to the monthly topic. See, some have argued that Trump's promises of "America first", and about withdrawing America from most conflicts and letting other countries sort their stuff out on their own, which he so generously gave during his election campaign, were spelling danger for world peace. Some even made the comparison to pre-WW2 time when America had its head buried in the sand, believing that two oceans on both sides were protecting her, this way not allowing the world to recover from the Great Depression, and allowing enough leeway to power-hungry wannabe-empires like Japan and Germany to start aggressive expansion.

But worry not, pro-intervention folks! For the time of Trump's promised withdrawal from the world scene only lasted a couple of months - until he clashed with reality, that is.

Now he has made a full 180 from a supposed foreign-policy realist to just another interventionist neocon.

The warming up with Russia quickly ran into a road-block, what with Tillerson's cold reception in the Kremlin, and Trump's hasty order to strike an Assad air base. Assad is Putin's buddy, no? And Trump used to scold Obama for pressing hard against Assad, telling him to leave him alone. Well, guess what. Trump now wants Assad out, just like Obama did. And of course, as you might have guessed, Putin will have none of it. The champagne in Kremlin has hardly warmed after they popped it last November, and now they're realizing their beloved Donnie is no better than his predecessor.

North Korea and China are yet another place where Trump is moving in hard. Remember the Pivot to Asia? It was Obama's doctrine about China. Wasn't Trump who used to criticize him for that? Well, he's doing the exact same thing.

"Trump’s pivot from isolationism to interventionism while staying the course on his paranoid and miserly approach to immigrants and refugees reveals the fundamental incoherence of his worldview. What had seemed a stunted, transactional form of realpolitik has turned out to be nothing more than improvisation and reflex, and the President’s actions may very well commit the U.S. to a path for which we are ill-equipped in light of how other administration policies damage our credibility and chances for success." -- Says it better than I ever could, frankly.

Comments

[oportet.livejournal.com]

...withdrawing America from most conflicts and letting other countries sort their stuff out on their own...

Sure there are downsides to this approach - there are downsides to every approach - there are no perfect options.

But usually, you have to pick a side. You can't kinda arm the Kurds. It's a black and white issue - where personally - I'd go with candidate Trump over President Trump. But - candidate Trump isn't calling the shots. The President has decided to continue that tradition - but I think we'd all agree that a President Clinton, or President Cruz, or President Bush - hell, any of the 25 or so big-two candidates probably would have continued it too - so we were prepared for it anyway...

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

The point is that no matter who is POTUS, he or she has to face the same reality; the same awful geopolitical constant and ongoing crisis with a shifting epicentre.

Now that could be a failure of narrative, or just the problem of mad "rogue" states. That is a debate for the semiotically-inclined political analysts.

[dreamville-bg.livejournal.com]

So essentially, people are stupid to vote for someone who promises them to do things they know full well the candidate wouldn't really do.

That I agree with.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

No, Trump is still a major liability, and compromised, if that's the English version of the Russian word I'm looking for. There is however a geopolitical reality which he and his cabinet have to deal with. And it appears that trade is dependent on neutralising the occasional insane rogue nation-states' grandiose designs. I mean, after all, what do you call ransomewear with nuclear weapons and a standing army?

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

He's compromised, so what? Scandals don't stick to him and don't affect him in any way.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

A solid majority in both houses helps rather; allied with a disinclination for even "patriotic" Republicans to rock the boat.

Manchurian candidate with sex scandals and financial dodginess as POTUS? That's fine as long as he a Repub.

Non-manchurian non GOP presidents can't even get a blow job without there being a special investigator recording all the details and asking probing personal questions.

You couldn't make it up. But you don't have to.