Trump foreign policy

When Can We Lay This Burden Down?

Patrick J. Buchanan, The American Conservative

Afghanistan is but one of the clashes and conflicts in which America is engaged. In our confrontation with Iran, we have few allies. We are still committed to go to war to defend South Korea. And the North has lately test-fired a series of ballistic missiles, none of which could hit the USA, but all of which could hit South Korea. Around the world, America is involved in quarrels, clashes and confrontations with almost too many nations to count. In how many of these are U.S. vital interests imperiled? And in how many are we facing potential wars on behalf of other nations, while they hold our coat and egg us on?

Iran and the Levers of Global Power

Victor Davis Hanson, National Review

The United States is almost immune from the sort of pressures that usually coalesce to dictate, modify, or thwart U.S. decision-making in the Middle East. Such liberation from outside coercion is singularly unusual in the post-war American overseas experience. Trump has some choices with Iran that few other presidents have enjoyed. After considering all the bad alternatives, Trump will likely conclude that the good one is to stay calm as Iran implodes, to not play omnipotent global cop responsible for the safe commerce of those who oppose U.S. withdrawal from the Iran deal, and to not weaken sanctions — and be ready to hit back hard should Iran be so foolish as to kill Americans in international space.

Memo to Trump: Trade Bolton for Tulsi

Patrick J. Buchanan, The American Conservative

The problem Gabbard presents for Democrats is that she takes positions that split her party, while her rivals prefer to talk about what unites the party, like the terribleness of Trump, free college tuition and soaking the rich. Given more airtime, she will present problems for the GOP as well. For the foreign policy Tulsi Gabbard is calling for is not far off from the foreign policy Donald Trump promised in 2016 but has since failed to deliver. We still have 2,000 troops in Syria, 5,000 in Iraq, 14,000 in Afghanistan. We just moved an aircraft carrier task force, B-52s and 1,000 troops to the Persian Gulf to confront Iran. We are about to impose sanctions on the Iranian foreign minister with whom we would need to negotiate to avoid a war.

Who Speaks for Donald Trump?

Patrick J. Buchanan, The American Conservative

Did not candidate Trump say he would be ending wars and bringing troops home, not plunging into new conflicts in the Mideast, Asia, Europe, the Western Hemisphere and "the Indo-Pacific"? One wonders: Do the hawks in his inner councils speak for Trump? For they surely do not speak for a nation whose weariness with wars put him into the White House. On the first day of Trump's visit to London, Pompeo, who last year issued his 12 demands on Iran, was quoted as saying the U.S. is now prepared to negotiate with Tehran with "no preconditions." For now, Trump's hawks appeared contained. But for how long?

Trump’s High-Wire Act of Reestablishing Deterrence without War

Victor Davis Hanson, National Review

These existential crises — Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, the Middle East — all preceded Trump. But they also all tested the Trump doctrine of restoring deterrence without engaging in costly optional wars. Trump must remember that he ambitiously is trying to solve the major festering challenges of U.S. foreign policy — all at once and right before an election, when his political opposition at home, most of the European Union, and our enemies would like to see him fail at last. So in the next 17 months we should expect all sorts of provocations from abroad, and so-called Logan Acting at home, to make Trump stumble and get into a messy intervention before the election.

Misunderstanding John Bolton

David Keene, Washington Times

Donald Trump campaigned for the presidency promising “to put America first” and John Bolton as public servant or private citizen has always done just that. Most of the wars of the last century and this came about because the parties that ended up shooting at each other didn’t understand until it was far too late that they crossed a line from which there would be no turning back. In advocating for America’s interests in and out of government, John Bolton has never sought war, but has always argued that a bright line serves our national interests and makes war less rather than more likely something President Trump clearly recognizes and appreciates.

The Problem With Trump’s Foreign Policy Is It’s Too Much Like Cheney’s

W. James Antle III, The American Conservative

Instead of following Cheney’s advice, as first-term W. did, Trump should learn that his failure to follow through on his “America First” campaign promises has won him little credit from the most important GOP hawks. This is similar to how his reticence on immigration has cost him the support of the Ann Coulters without gaining him any new defenders. Disastrous results aside, Cheney was always a more articulate and consistent defender of Bush’s foreign policy than the 43rd president himself. Perhaps he just made the best case for Trump’s, too.

Donald Trump, The Peace President

Whether President Trump’s approach of dangling peace and prosperity in front of North Korea’s Kim Jong Un will achieve long-term peace remains to be seen, but it is certain that over the past 50-years the foreign policy establishment’s efforts in Korea have failed, where Trump has stopped the missile launches and nuclear tests. Americans should give peace, and President Trump a chance.

Putin Summit May Prove to Be Trump's Finest Hour

Roger L. Simon, PJ Media

Trump's certainly doing some things wrong -- we all do --  but being gracious to Putin personally while actively opposing what the Russian does in his actions, may be exactly the way to get results. But Trump's opponents don't care about results. Overwhelmed with hate, they would prefer to see the president wounded and impeached than succeed with Putin and bring about a world safer from nuclear armageddon.

The Post-War Order Is Over

Victor Davis Hanson, National Review

Historic forces have made post-war thinking obsolete and thereby left many reactionary “experts” wedded to the past and in denial about the often-dangerous reality before their eyes. Worse is the autopilot railing for the nth time that Donald Trump threatens the post-war order, undermines NATO, is clueless about the EU, or ignores the sophisticated institutions that hold the world together. About the only metaphor that works is that Trump threw a pebble at a global glass house. But that is not a morality tale about the power of pebbles, but rather about the easy shattering of cracked glass.

Nikki Haley: Biggest Surprise Of 2017

When Nikki Haley was announced as President Trump’s choice for UN ambassador we looked at her ties to the Republican establishment and announced ourselves as, to say the least, skeptical, but Haley has proven to be one of President Trump’s more inspired personnel choices and her success in that role is the biggest surprise of 2017.

Strategic patience is dead — long live America first

Sebastian Gorka, The Hill

Whether the threats to our nation are physical or economic, overt or political, they will be met head on and in a way that makes it clear that a world without America leadership is a dangerous world and that in a world in which American leadership is reasserted, all people of good faith and good conscience can profit and be more secure.

Trump's Unsung Success in the Middle East

David P. Goldman, PJ Media

Overall, Trump's Middle East policy has been a success, in striking contrast to his predecessors. The supposed Middle East mavens among the preening NeverTrumpers (Max Boot, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Bill Kristol et. al) made a mess of things, and Trump has gone a long way to cleaning it up. That's not bad for one year in office.

The Real Saboteurs of a Trump Foreign Policy

Patrick J. Buchanan, The American Conservative

The real saboteurs of his new foreign policy may not be inside the Ring Road in Moscow; rather, they may be inside the Beltway around DC. The real danger may be that a new Trump foreign policy could be hijacked or scuttled by anti-Trump Republicans, not only on Capitol Hill but inside the executive branch itself.