There is no magic solution to the North Korea Problem. But military action should be a last resort, reserved for preempting a direct and imminent threat that doesn’t presently exist. Washington must avoid triggering the Second Korean War.
It would be wonderful if the U.S. could create a liberal future for Afghans who desire to escape the past. But that task is beyond Washington’s capabilities and cannot justify expending more American lives and monies.
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte is proving himself to be an unstable anti-American autocrat, who should not be entrusted with the power to drag us into war over some rocks or reefs in the South China Sea. Termination of our Mutual Defense Treaty would restore America’s absolute freedom to act or not act militarily in the South China Sea, according to our interests, and not Duterte’s whims.
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.
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.
Of Hillary Clinton's belligerent record Donald Trump observed: “Sometimes it seemed like there wasn’t a country in the Middle East that Hillary Clinton didn’t want to invade, intervene in, or topple.”
Hillary Clinton will complete the Obama agenda of the destruction of America’s Armed Forces by continuing and even accelerating the pace of the social experiments, willful blindness to internal and external threats and other destructive policies President Barack Obama has imposed upon America's military.
Neither party establishment is prepared to advance a strategy for victory, neither party establishment is prepared to successfully “wage peace.” Only Donald Trump was prepared to say that endless war is not just political folly, but an indecent sacrifice of American lives and treasure.
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.
Former NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s greatest fear appears to be that Donald Trump might be elected and end Washington’s unique global role: “What is at stake here is the American role as the global superpower.” Meaning America should continue to foot the bill in lives and treasure to protect countries that can and should protect themselves.
Afghanistan is now even more dangerous than it was a year ago. The Taliban now controls more territory than at any time since 2001. Despite pouring $113.1 billion into Afghanistan, Washington has surprisingly few sustainable, long-term benefits to show for it.
Washington’s allies generally are a pathetic lot. Benefiting from sizeable and capable populations and enjoying large and advanced economies, they nevertheless can’t be bothered to invest heavily in their own defense, so the bulk of Washington’s over-size military outlays are to project power for the benefit of its ne’er-do-well allies.
No one seriously expects the Dutch, Italians, or Spanish to provide permanent garrisons for Poland. The Germans, who publicly oppose the idea, won’t be coming. Only Britain and France are realistic candidates, and both only reluctantly halted further cuts in their military budget. Which leaves only you-know-who.
Nothing in liberal philosophy requires residents of the globe’s most powerful “liberal” nation to bankrupt themselves, sacrifice their liberty, and court national destruction to try to make the earth a better place. Americans, especially traditional liberals, should choose domestic peace and prosperity over international charity and conflict.
NATO originally was created to act as a firebreak to war. Current policy threatens to turn it into a transmission belt of war. After getting through the entire Cold War without a shooting war with Moscow, why would Washington take action which essentially would force Russia to strike back militarily?