Foreign Policy Shifts?

[squorch2]

In the real world, there's no way to plan when the administration isn't staffed, the president veers from COA to COA, and no one can really say what the overarching strategy is beyond "America First."

Good news for nations that like spheres of influence. Less so for assured US access to ports, airspace, markets.

 

[Uncle Fester]

The new admin's strategy, as far as I understand it, seems naïve, because it's two contradictory goals. Build a huge military so nobody messes with us, and never send it anywhere because allies should defend themselves. But if your strategy isn't to intervene anywhere, how do you justify building up your conventional forces? And if you say you need a huge military, then whatever your strategy is, it isn't disengagement.

The services know this won't last forever. I predict the next two years will be a scramble to get programs of record contracted and funded before the budgetary hangover sets in and the next Congress turns it off.

 

[Hotdogs]

The new admin's strategy, as far as I understand it, seems naïve, because it's two contradictory goals. Build a huge military so nobody messes with us, and never send it anywhere because allies should defend themselves. But if your strategy isn't to intervene anywhere, how do you justify building up your conventional forces? And if you say you need a huge military, then whatever your strategy is, it isn't disengagement.
.

What strategy?

I'll wait until I see an actual new NSS and NMS published before I make any real assessments. All anyone has really heard has been largely hand waving "more ships, more troops, more NATO pressure" (largely typical GOP talking points) and nothing really specific. Mattis confirmation hearing had a decent peak at some of what the armed services committee is looking at right now.

 

[dodge]

Until otherwise I view most of new POTUS's bold declarations as opening bids and setting leverage.

How do you get NATO to pony up more money? Threaten to withdraw. Have congress craft a bill while you're at it. Want more border fencing and resources? Threaten to build an entire wall (and make the other guy pay for it). His campaign struck some extreme positions which could seemingly work great from a negotiating perspective. He has plenty of room to walk back from and still get plenty in the process. "40% Tariff! Ok, ok, I'll settle for 5%" (and look like a nice guy in return).

It worked the otherway too. China has all the leverage? Ring up Taiwan and tell the Chinese navy to keep our stolen drone while you're at it.

And so on.

Or he could be batshit crazy and fully intend on going through with it, which is what the press/establishment are telling us. We'll just have to wait and see. They took him literally and not seriously and never gave him a shot, and, well, here we are.

Like others have said, the Mattis selection out the gate should be reassuring. If he's serious about leaving NATO I don't think Mattis would ever have climbed onboard.

But then again I'm no expert (I did complete JPME-1 via CD so obviously I know what I'm talking about).

 

[squorch2]

There are other actors on the world stage besides the US. In the absence of a predictable, stable message from the Trump administration, they'll act in their own best interests and assume that Trump means what he says.

 

[Flash]

...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.

If anyone wonders what Secretary Mattis thinks all they need to do is read his first communique as SECDEF:

It’s good to be back and I’m grateful to serve alongside you as Secretary of Defense.

Together with the Intelligence Community we are the sentinels and guardians of our nation. We need only look to you, the uniformed and civilian members of the Department and your families, to see the fundamental unity of our country. You represent an America committed to the common good; an America that is never complacent about defending its freedoms; and an America that remains a steady beacon of hope for all mankind.

Every action we take will be designed to ensure our military is ready to fight today and in the future. Recognizing that no nation is secure without friends, we will work with the State Department to strengthen our alliances. Further, we are devoted to gaining full value from every taxpayer dollar spent on defense, thereby earning the trust of Congress and the American people.

I am confident you will do your part. I pledge to you I’ll do my best as your Secretary.

MATTIS SENDS

 

[Flash]

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

 

[dodge]

There are other actors on the world stage besides the US. In the absence of a predictable, stable message from the Trump administration, they'll act in their own best interests and assume that Trump means what he says.

Certainly. The enemy gets a vote. My commentary isn't an necessarily an endorsement of his method, but I would say that for him to get leverage to get what he wants it'd be necessary that they do believe what he says.

 

[nittany03]

[meme]

 

[squorch2]

Certainly. The enemy gets a vote. My commentary isn't an necessarily an endorsement of his method, but I would say that for him to get leverage to get what he wants it'd be necessary that they do believe what he says.

what leverage?

 

[Randy Daytona]

Until otherwise I view most of new POTUS's bold declarations as opening bids and setting leverage.

How do you get NATO to pony up more money? Threaten to withdraw. Have congress craft a bill while you're at it. Want more border fencing and resources? Threaten to build an entire wall (and make the other guy pay for it). His campaign struck some extreme positions which could seemingly work great from a negotiating perspective. He has plenty of room to walk back from and still get plenty in the process. "40% Tariff! Ok, ok, I'll settle for 5%" (and look like a nice guy in return).

It worked the otherway too. China has all the leverage? Ring up Taiwan and tell the Chinese navy to keep our stolen drone while you're at it.

And so on.

Or he could be batshit crazy and fully intend on going through with it, which is what the press/establishment are telling us. We'll just have to wait and see. They took him literally and not seriously and never gave him a shot, and, well, here we are.

Like others have said, the Mattis selection out the gate should be reassuring. If he's serious about leaving NATO I don't think Mattis would ever have climbed onboard.

I agree with a lot of that. The question has to be asked: why are 300 million Americans paying to support 600 million NATO ally members from 150 million Russians? It was one thing immediately after WW2, but now the Europeans can certainly afford to shoulder more of the burden of their own defense. Germany is spending only 1.19% of their GDP on defense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO

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.

I meant in the literal sense of the word. Taking out nuclear weapons and MAD, which nation should we be more worried about:

1) Russia: population 140 million, GDP of $1.2 Trillion, minimal industrial base, fighting in Ukraine (not a huge strategic concern)
2) China: population 1,140 million, GDP of $12 Trillion, huge industrial base, building artificial islands and airstrips in the middle of the shipping lanes (big concern)

It appears Trump is pivoting to face the Chinese - and by extension, trying not to aggravate the Russians.

 

[squorch2]

ISAF, motherfucker, do you speak it?

Sotto voce (NATO provides the bulk of minesweeping capability for the US)

 

[Caesium]

I agree with a lot of that. The question has to be asked: why are 300 million Americans paying to support 600 million NATO ally members from 150 million Russians? It was one thing immediately after WW2, but now the Europeans can certainly afford to shoulder more of the burden of their own defense. Germany is spending only 1.19% of their GDP on defense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO



I meant in the literal sense of the word. Taking out nuclear weapons and MAD, which nation should we be more worried about:

1) Russia: population 140 million, GDP of $1.2 Trillion, minimal industrial base, fighting in Ukraine (not a huge strategic concern)
2) China: population 1,140 million, GDP of $12 Trillion, huge industrial base, building artificial islands and airstrips in the middle of the shipping lanes (big concern)

It appears Trump is pivoting to face the Chinese - and by extension, trying not to aggravate the Russians.

But if we pretend nukes don't exist, no country really presents an 'existential' threat to the USA. Nuclear weapons are the only thing besides domestic issues that could actually end the existence of the USA as a country or political entity. I do actually agree with you that china is a bigger threat, but neither of us has the capacity to actually destroy the other w/o nuclear weapons.

 

[Hotdogs]

ISAF, motherfucker, do you speak it?

Sotto voce (NATO provides the bulk of minesweeping capability for the US)

I hope you have more to add to the discussion...

 

[Recovering LSO]

I hope you have more to add to the discussion...

I'll try to help him out a bit.

@Randy Daytona do not forget that while, in your words, 300m Americans are paying to protect 600m Euros from 150m Russians - the US gets a lot out of partnerships as well. If you're not willing to cede that there is tangible benefit from it now, can you at least recognize that it's good to have allies on what we might call retainer?

BTW, any issue with 300m Americans paying to protect 8m Israelis from myriad threats?

Didn't Churchill have something to say on this matter...? He seems to be back en vogue with those in the Oval Office....