The U.S.-South Korea alliance has outlived its usefulness. Instead of reassuring Seoul, the Trump administration should prepare to renegotiate the alliance, creating a looser but more equal cooperative military relationship. South Korea should take on responsibilities commensurate with its capabilities.
Obviously the world is a messy place. But what stresses American policymakers? It’s not the problem of defending the U.S. No other country has a conventional capability to reach America. Thus, America's national security team need not worry about the sort of potential threats facing virtually every other nation.
President Obama is the most unaccomplished man to ever hold the office and has been given an eight-year free pass and never held to account for his failures; while Donald J. Trump hasn't even been sworn in and is already a human pinata for the snowflake right and the radical left.
No other nation today poses a greater danger to American national security than China, a state engaged in an unprecedented campaign of information warfare using both massive cyberattacks and influence operations aimed at diminishing what Beijing regards as its most important strategic enemy – the United States of America.
The neo-con counter to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” seems to be shaping up to be “Make Russia Evil Again.” If President-elect Trump wants to drain the swamp in DC, and formulate a new national security policy focused on winning cyberwarfare battles and eradicating ISIS and militant Islam, he should start by draining Obama’s Pentagon.
China can choke North Korea to death. But China can also step back and let Pyongyang become a nuclear-weapons state, though that could mean Seoul and Tokyo following suit, which would be intolerable to Beijing. Before we go down this road, President-elect Trump and his foreign-policy team ought to think through just where it leads—and where it might end.
A group of conservative leaders is urging both houses of Congress to “establish and fund permanent standing committees to conduct hearings and investigations, take testimony, and issue reports on all foreign-funded influence operations inside the United States, and on organizations and movements and fraudulent tax-exempt foundations devoted to the overthrow of the Constitution of the United States.”
Almost every “natural” crisis in North Korea is exacerbated by the ruling regime’s totalitarian economic and political policies. Equally harmful is the diversion of scarce resources into Pyongyang’s oversize military and active missile and nuclear programs.
Washington doesn’t need to “win” in the Philippines. Better that the American people win by dropping an expensive and risky commitment to go to war on behalf of a nation largely irrelevant to U.S. security.
U.S. policy toward the North Korea has failed. Successive U.S. presidents have inveighed against a nuclear North Korea and insisted that the North would not be allowed to become a nuclear state. It is one. And its capabilities are growing.
Extended nuclear deterrence always has been a risky proposition for the U.S. It means being willing to fight a nuclear war on behalf of others, that is, Americans would risk Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles to, say, defend Berlin and Tokyo.
Donald Trump has questioned whether we are getting value for the defense dollars committed to NATO, CHQ contributor Doug Bandow makes the case that expanding NATO has made America less secure.
America’s fiscal position is deteriorating sharply. Earlier this year the Congressional Budget Office forecast that the federal deficit was back on the rise in 2016, with steady increases expected over the next decade. There isn’t going to be much money for the national government to spend on “discretionary” items, including underwriting wealthy allies, rebuilding failed states, and enforcing international norms.
The U.S. is expected to protect virtually every prosperous, populous, industrialized nation. But that’s just a start. Washington also must coddle, pamper, praise, uplift, pacify, encourage, and otherwise placate the same countries because they now believe it to be America’s duty to handle their defense. Alas, U.S. leaders have been only too willing to enable this counterproductive behavior. Except for Donald Trump.
In a stealth move that would affect nearly every American home and business and compromise national security the Obama Administration is proceeding with an effort that began while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State to illegally giveaway control of the Internet to the likes of Iran, China and Russia.
The way Washington won agreement from some nuclear-capable powers to abstain from going nuclear is to provide a “nuclear umbrella,” that is, promise to use nukes to defend them if necessary. As a result, the price of nonproliferation in East Asia is America’s willingness to risk Los Angeles to protect Seoul and Tokyo, and maybe Taipei and Canberra too. Trump was right, the U.S. ought to discuss whether those commitments are still in our interest.
J. Christian Adams has documented in a must-read article for PJ Media “Donald Trump's Record of Business Failures and Bluster,” how Trump’s “legacy of business failures goes beyond the four bankruptcies of his Atlantic City casinos. It includes outsourcing jobs to China, ripping off students seeking an education, and leaving a path of devastated Americans in his wake.”
If there was no cost to strewing U.S. personnel around the world and threatening war against potentially hostile powers, there would be little complaint with Washington’s policy. Alas, military spending is the price of America’s foreign policy. Most of the Pentagon’s efforts are devoted to protecting other nations rather than the U.S.
American politics has been ugly of late. But political attacks in the U.S. cannot compare with those in modern China. This tumultuous process is captured by changing Chinese poster art. President Xi Jinping has been taking down powerful opponents, so-called “tigers.” However, he has not revived propaganda posters, once a pervasive political weapon.
The People's Republic of China is now freer, despite the recent crackdown on dissent. Religion is spreading despite attempts to reduce its visibility. Criticism is widespread, even though such views cannot be broadcast. The country is also much more prosperous than before, which increases Beijing’s stake in a stable international order.