Foreign Policy Shifts?

[Randy Daytona]

Now that President Trump has been sworn it, analysts are trying to figure out where US foreign policy is headed. Here are a couple of interesting predictions from STRATFOR and also George Friedman of GEOPOLITICAL FUTURES.

https://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical-diary/weaving-threads-possible-trump-doctrine

Of the many unanswered questions surrounding foreign policy under Trump, few are more significant than the future of the U.S. relationships with Russia and China. For all its social and economic difficulties, Russia remains a major military power and a key force in the affairs of the world's most strategically significant regions: Europe, the Middle East and East Asia. China has likewise entered a period of economic and political uncertainty marked by slowing economic growth and a political centralization effort under President Xi Jinping. But China has the world's second-largest economy and boasts military forces that are growing increasingly capable. Though China is both much weaker and far more geographically constrained than the United States, it is the only country outside America with a plausible path to regional hegemony in the not-too-distant future.

http://www.realclearworld.com/artic...t_radical_foreign_policy_doctrine_112180.html

Trump is proposing a redefinition of U.S. foreign policies based on current realities, not those of 40 years ago. It is a foreign policy in which American strength is maximized in order to achieve American ends...U.S. policy has been reflexively committed to arrangements that are three-quarters of a century old. The world has changed, but the shape of U.S. policy has not.

 

[Uncle Fester]

The problem with that argument is that it ignores the efforts of each of the last four administrations to do exactly that. Each of them believed, with reason, that the world situation and America's place in it had fundamentally changed and tried to orient strategy accordingly. Was Obama 'reflexively tied' to NATO? What was GW Bush doing if not "maximizing American strength to achieve American ends"?

If you want to see what foreign policy looks like when you react to situations instead of having a strategy, and refuse to listen to military and diplomatic experts because they 'created the problem,' then look at the last eight years. Obama rolled into office believing he had a mandate to shake up the status quo. Nobody, left right or center, thinks it worked. Hope isn't a strategy. Neither is naïvety, ego, and believing you can fix things strictly because you're smarter and better-intentioned than your predecessor.

We're fools if we trust Putin further than we can throw him. Picking a schoolyard fight with the Chinese hurts us more than it hurts them and benefits nobody.

 

[Caesium]

I wonder whether we will pull troops out of Germany, Japan, and other long-standing allies.

 

[Brett327]

There was reporting this week where Ben Rhodes deployed his excuse matrix vis-a-vis inaction in Syria after the use of CW/red lines/etc. Citing pressure from John Boehner's inquiry into the constitutionality of military action in Syria, they allegedly had "concerns" about impeachment. That doesn't square with even the most conservative interpretation of the War Powers Act - and I suspect their spin machine is betting that the majority of Americans don't understand that process. Either way, it's a completely bogus excuse.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...acy-ben-rhodes-donald-trump-china-iran-214642

 

[Brett327]

I wonder whether we will pull troops out of Germany, Japan, and other long-standing allies.

No serious military advisor would ever recommend that - not to mention that we have two COCOMs and NATO HQs in Europe.

Edit: Let's take a moment to pull back from the campaign rhetoric and examine the national security team POTUS has surrounded himself with. Have any of them advocated a withdraw of forward deployed forces? They're a pretty hawkish set of folks. Mattis and Flynn have already stated unequivocal support for NATO. Take that into account as you're thinking about what the future might hold.

 

[squorch2]

Mattis and Flynn have already stated unequivocal support for NATO. Take that into account as you're thinking about what the future might hold.

Trump has expressed the opposite.

 

[Brett327]

Trump has expressed the opposite.

That's why I asked people to consider the differences between the campaign rhetoric and the mindset of the national security team. How many other campaign promises and rhetorical statements has the administration now publically pulled back from? Lots.

 

[jmcquate]

I'm sure it's out there, but I've never seen any planning for a large scale ground defense of CONUS. WE relay on a couple of oceans and all of you Navy types for that. Why promise to re-build a military designed to operate just about everywhere but here, then bring it all back here?

 

[Randy Daytona]

The problem with that argument is that it ignores the efforts of each of the last four administrations to do exactly that. Each of them believed, with reason, that the world situation and America's place in it had fundamentally changed and tried to orient strategy accordingly. Was Obama 'reflexively tied' to NATO? What was GW Bush doing if not "maximizing American strength to achieve American ends"?

If you want to see what foreign policy looks like when you react to situations instead of having a strategy, and refuse to listen to military and diplomatic experts because they 'created the problem,' then look at the last eight years. Obama rolled into office believing he had a mandate to shake up the status quo. Nobody, left right or center, thinks it worked. Hope isn't a strategy. Neither is naïvety, ego, and believing you can fix things strictly because you're smarter and better-intentioned than your predecessor.

We're fools if we trust Putin further than we can throw him. Picking a schoolyard fight with the Chinese hurts us more than it hurts them and benefits nobody.

That leads to the discussion we had earlier: existential threats. What do you consider the US's greatest existential threat and why? For that matter, you could apply the same query of what are Russia's and China's existential threats.

 

[Recovering LSO]

That leads to the discussion we had earlier: existential threats.

The only threat the administration seems to view as existential is the threat that people might not think they had big, huge, massive crowds at the inauguration. The fact that the first presser of the term starts off with a childish Baghdad-Bob style tongue lashing about doctored photos and alleged crowd numbers... yep, serious discussions of foreign policy seem to be pretty high on the list of priorities.

 

[Uncle Fester]

That leads to the discussion we had earlier: existential threats. What do you consider the US's greatest existential threat and why? For that matter, you could apply the same query of what are Russia's and China's existential threats.

I really wish the Department would quit using 'existential'. The word's started to mean whatever the user thinks it means, and nobody seems to agree - the definition of a useless word.

If you mean literally existential threat - could threaten our existence as a country - then Russia and China. They're adversarial to our interests and have sufficient arsenals to destroy us.

Since WWII, our basic defense policy has been to be able to immediately engage and decisively defeat any and all threats to our interests. Every administration has had its own definition of "American interests," and this new admin seems to limit it to "things inside our borders." Withdraw and protect things with a US flag over it, leave other countries to mind their borders and economies, make our allies pay for their own defense. Accept the strategic risk that any general war that breaks out will require a long campaign and initially heavy losses. In other words, return to circa-1920s world. Problem with that is, one, it's not 1925 any more in any way; two, you saw how that strategy eventually worked out.

 

[Renegade One]

...I've never seen any planning for a large scale ground defense of CONUS.

"There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

 

[jmcquate]

"There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

WOLVERINES!!!!!!!!!!

 

[nittany03]

Accept the strategic risk that any general war that breaks out will require a long campaign and initially heavy losses. In other words, return to circa-1920s world. Problem with that is, one, it's not 1925 any more in any way; two, you saw how that strategy eventually worked out.

When the heavy industry you need to mobilize doesn't exist anymore, and the stuff you need to build is much, much more expensive. F-22 vs P-51?

 

[squorch2]

Pfft. In our brave new world of alternative facts, we have 4000 F-22s.

No need for hand wringing.