- In part a pivot toward defense against China and we are not talking pick and roll(over) like the NBA
- Pompeo speech lays out Trump foreign policy
America as Rome (something this editor had some resignation toward on the theory it was in our and the world’s best interest) was a flippant response to paralysis of morally bankrupt Europeans who have had more directly at stake in the mess that is the Middle East. But it was not America as conqueror Rome but a protector Rome. It was practical to the extent of ~~ who would want to “partner” with such a besotted lot – Europe and nutso Middle East nations anyway ~~ just take charge and get the job done because dallying with them just costs you more. So we nursed everyone along and to what avail? None have grown up and won’t until they are taken off America’s nipple.
Countries with so little demonstrable will, or so far from being on the same page are going to have to hit bottom and show evidence of pulling themselves up. Europe has to step up and fight what are most intrinsically more their battles, we can only help.
Providently the Middle East nutsos can no longer strangle us by choking off trade in oil — a critical concern prompting the picking of allies for several recent decades. Of course leftists here insured that dependence was as acute as possible for as long as possible as their green and energy efficiency policies were to such a great extent fraught with counterproductive error (wind and solar as opposed to nuclear for example) and opposing use of the abundance of energy sources we have access to.
The big stick – not a police baton
Nevertheless we have legitimate independent interests in the region to insure that nutcases who shout death to America do not get the means to actually do so from the means of wealth they confiscate. That is how we viewed the justifications for what came to be called OIF and support of actual or quasi allies in the region. Afghanistan was to be a a war to obliterate terrorist cells and activity there in part directed at us. We were not going to allow intimidation or another loss as occurred here on 9-11-01.
You start it, or threaten it, we will end it. That is what we interpreted as the underlying foreign policy. Nation building and accompanying garrison duty was ill considered.
Here are a couple of “real-politic” assessments of Trump’s foreign policy. The first link is to a compelling article by Sumatra Maitra writing at The Federalist and deals in particular with the real-politics of the region.
Why Trump Is Absolutely Right To Get U.S. Troops Out Of Syria
Moving American troops from Syria would be perhaps the most far-sighted thing Trump does as president, and would benefit the United States in the years to come
Kurt Schlichter writing at Townhall includes domestic implications with characteristic directness along with reasoning and support for Trump’s decision as a matter of military and foreign relations. He also brought to our attention the speech of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to the Claremont Institute setting out the Trump foreign policy “doctrine”. Pompeo is a West Point graduate, along with experience as a congressman (Kansas Republicans occasionally do something right) and national security expert. The video of his speech is set forth below the link to Schlichter’s article.
The Elite Hates The Trump Doctrine Because It Puts America First
One favorite profundity in Pompeo’s speech, past the half-way point, were words to the effect ~~ “it used to be said , then what ever is good for General Motors is good for the country, Obama said words to the effect what is good for the world is good for America, (although it hurt America and the world was not better off for such globalist BS) — Trump’s emphasis is that “what is good for America is good for the world.” We will go back and transcribe the exact words but we like the general formulation.
