Trump’s One Foreign-Policy Idea Is to Make America More Like Its Enemies

  
Via:  john-russell  •  2 months ago  •  40 comments

Trump’s One Foreign-Policy Idea Is to Make America More Like Its Enemies
This is Trump’s deepest belief about foreign policy: The things that separate the United States from terrorists and dictatorships are not a source of strength, but of weakness. Our enemies are stronger and tougher, willing to do the hard things that must be done in order to win. To defeat them, we must become like them. Trump has long dismissed respect for human rights, international law, and innocent life as a form of political correctness.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/trump-iran-war-crimes-cultural-bomb-foreign-policy.html

President Trump’s risky escalation of the conflict with Iran has confused many people who took him, if not for a dove exactly, then for a skeptic of wars, especially in the Middle East. The unfolding Iran adventure seems to open once again the question of what principle, if any, defines this president’s foreign policy. Isolationism? Nationalism? Whatever Fox News is demanding at any given moment?

His real North Star is in fact an idea he has explicated many times, but — perhaps because it is so horrifying — even his critics seem hesitant to accept as a true motivation. Trump’s plan is to collapse the moral space between America and its enemies.

The president laid out his logic most recently on Sunday night, when he reiterated his  threat  to destroy Iranian cultural sites if that country retaliates in the wake of the targeted killing of Qasem Soleimani. “They’re allowed to kill our people,” Trump told the press pool. “They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn’t work that way.”

This is Trump’s deepest belief about foreign policy: The things that separate the United States from terrorists and dictatorships are not a source of strength, but of weakness. Our enemies are stronger and tougher, willing to do the hard things that must be done in order to win. To defeat them, we must become like them.

Trump has long dismissed respect for human rights, international law, and innocent life as a form of political correctness. During the campaign, he promised to kill the families of terrorists, steal oil from countries the U.S. invades, and restore torture. “Don’t tell me it doesn’t work — torture works,” Trump said in 2016. “Okay, folks? Torture — you know, half these guys [say]: ‘Torture doesn’t work.’ Believe me, it works. Okay?”

Trump even laid out his intentions in an op-ed during the Republican primary. “I have made it clear in my campaign that I would support and endorse the use of enhanced interrogation techniques if the use of these methods would enhance the protection and safety of the nation,” Trump penned in a  USA Today   op-ed , short enough to have plausibly been written by his own hand. “Though the effectiveness of many of these methods may be in dispute, nothing should be taken off the table when American lives are at stake. The enemy is cutting off the heads of Christians and drowning them in cages, and yet we are too politically correct to respond in kind.” Here again is the characteristic assumption in his mind that any distinction between methods used by terrorists and by the U.S. military necessarily means the U.S. has imposed a needless handicap upon itself.

This sort of rhetoric was generally dismissed as campaign bluster. But Trump has increasingly found it within his means to turn his ideas into practice. He has pardoned and celebrated the most  notorious  war criminals in the U.S. military, opening an avenue for sadistic killers to indiscriminately torture prisoners and murder civilians, knowing they can appeal to the president to escape any accountability for their crimes. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that, in the pardon power, Trump has found a loophole that allows him to negate the entire military code of conduct.

Whether Trump likewise carries out his threat to destroy cultural sites in Iran is obviously an open question.  CNN  reports that senior officials have registered opposition to the idea, which is not only an unambiguous war crime but a method of war crime closely associated with the Taliban. But the protective cordon surrounding Trump has eroded as his first term draws to a close, and it would be foolish to assume they will necessarily succeed in stopping his latest unthinkable act.

Trump’s disdain for human rights and international law explains his longstanding admiration for dictators. This is a man who 30 years ago criticized the Chinese communist party for waiting too long to suppress the demonstrations at Tiananmen Square, and defended Vladimir Putin’s iron hand: “He’s running his country and at least he’s a leader, unlike what we have in this country,” Trump said in 2015. From the premise that the authoritarians of the world are strong and correct, and its (small-d) democrats are politically correct fools, his broader recasting of America’s alliances makes perfect sense.  Of course  he would draw the United States closer to Russia, the Gulf States, and the emerging autocrats of Europe, and further away from its traditional Western allies. Why side with the foolish and weak when we can instead cast our lot with the clever and strong?


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    2 months ago
From the premise that the authoritarians of the world are strong and correct, and its (small-d) democrats are politically correct fools, his broader recasting of America’s alliances makes perfect sense. Of course he would draw the United States closer to Russia, the Gulf States, and the emerging autocrats of Europe, and further away from its traditional Western allies. Why side with the foolish and weak when we can instead cast our lot with the clever and strong?

The seeded article is an almost flawless analysis. 

 
 
 
katrix
1.1  katrix  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

Doesn't surprise me that Trump has more in common with the Taliban than with our Constitution.

 
 
 
Ronin2
2  Ronin2    2 months ago

What the article fails to leave out is Trump wouldn't do anything to anyone if they would leave the US alone. 

So the analogy is flawed. For anything Trump wants to occur their has to be an attack on US personnel or citizens first. Iran, and the terrorists they support have no such compunctions about striking first.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @2    2 months ago

If we attack and destroy Iranian "cultural" sites we will be no better than the Taliban or AlQaeda or ISIS, yet it seems Trump doesnt care about that. 

I think it is fair to say that he would like to be an autocrat and have no one to answer to, but I think American institutions are still strong enough to prevent that. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    2 months ago

No.

None of those organizations would bother waiting for a reason to destroy any "cultural" sites. Their very existence is a reason for them to be destroyed.

If Iran, or their proxies, attacks US citizens or US personnel then the Iranian sites will be in danger of being destroyed. If Iran reins in their terrorist militias, and doesn't attack US citizens or personnel, then their "cultural sites" will be safe from harm.

While I am against Trump threatening their "cultural" sites; comparing Trump to terrorists, the Taliban, or even Iran is out of bounds. Or at least should be; but the Democrats are trying to make Trump's outlandishness look ordinary by their over reactions.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.2  r.t..b...  replied to  Ronin2 @2    2 months ago
Trump wouldn't do anything to anyone if they would leave the US alone. 

The United States has never, since before it's inception, been a country with closed borders or closed minds as to it's place in the global community. We reached out to allies in support of our Revolution, and we honored our alliances in the World Wars. Should we cede our leadership role today in the selfish effort to be 'left alone', we betray everything upon which we were founded. Our entire history gives us examples of why we should take the lead, in cooperation with our allies, to work together in defeating those dark, despotic regimes that would undo the sacrifices of all those who believed we were founded to shine a light on that darkness, lest we become one ourselves by ignoring our commitments to those that believe in the same, in favor and in fervor of our own self-interest.

 
 
 
bbl-1
3  bbl-1    2 months ago

Bottom line is that Pelosi was correct.  "With you Mr. President, all roads lead to Putin."

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.1  Ronin2  replied to  bbl-1 @3    2 months ago

Russians, Russians, Russians everywhere!!!!!! jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
bbl-1
3.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1    2 months ago

Yes they are.  Now occupying our previous positions in Syria.

 
 
 
loki12
4  loki12    2 months ago

SO the sovereign US soil is attacked, the attackers spray paint Soliemani is our leader on the embassy, and trump kills the leader and the left is outraged.  

Obama attacks a sovereign country that is a threat to no one, other than Clintons ability to run guns and kills it's leader and trumps the bad guy?

That is some serious fucked up thinking right there.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @4    2 months ago
SO the sovereign US soil is attacked, the attackers spray paint  Soliemani is our leader on the embassy, and trump kills the leader and the left is outraged.

So you feel capital punishment is appropriate for graffiti?

Obama attacks a sovereign country that is a threat to no one

m3h5vw362ec11.jpg

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.1  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1    2 months ago
So you feel capital punishment is appropriate for graffiti?

So you feel African Americans are inferior because they can't get ID's to vote?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @4.1.1    2 months ago
So you feel African Americans are inferior because they can't get ID's to vote?

WTF are you talking about?  Another pathetic attempt at deflection?

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.3  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.2    2 months ago

Just playing the same game you are, if you don't like stop playing stupid games.

 
 
 
bbl-1
4.1.4  bbl-1  replied to  loki12 @4.1.3    2 months ago

Okay.  This is on you, loki12.  Why can't African Americans get ID's to vote?

Remember this, loki12, honesty is more than a virtue.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @4.1.3    one month ago

Just playing the same game you are, if you don't like stop playing stupid games.

YOU said...

SO the sovereign US soil is attacked, the attackers spray paint Soliemani is our leader on the embassy, and trump kills the leader and the left is outraged.

Spraying paint on walls = graffiti.  Crime would = criminal mischief.

You felt Trump was justified in killing him because "the attackers spray paint Soliemani is our leader on the embassy".  If you don't like the conclusion I suggest you read what you write before posting.

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.6  loki12  replied to  bbl-1 @4.1.4    one month ago

I believe there is no reason they can't get ID's to vote, just like there is no reason they can't get into college without liberals help. they are every bit as capable as white people. Why do you believe African Americans are less capable than whites?

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.7  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.5    one month ago

Sigh............Still having issues with the written word? or projecting a failed talking point and then arguing against it?

"SO the sovereign US soil is attacked, the attackers spray paint Soliemani is our leader on the embassy, and trump kills the leader and the left is outraged."

Can you pick out the important part in the sentence above and try again, or do you need me to explain it to you? I highlighted part to help you, If you need a more detailed analysis just ask.

Here is hint number 2 for you, since it's obvious you just don't get it, Did trump kill the graffiti artist? why no he didn't which made you claim about me completely ignorant on it's face, He killed the person who the attackers confessed in writing, that he was their leader in planning and organizing the attack.  But I'm sure the Soleimani family appreciates your support.

So why do you think African Americans are inferior because they can't get ID's to vote?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.8  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @4.1.7    one month ago
Sigh............Still having issues with the written word?

Not at all, you made it plain.  It is you having problems with what you wrote.

"SO the sovereign US soil is attacked, the attackers spray paint Soliemani is our leader on the embassy, and trump kills the leader and the left is outraged."

Our sovereign US soil is attacked by taggers and you feel that is worthy of capital punishment.  You keep saying the same thing over and over, it doesn't change things.  You are still happy that someone was killed because a wall(s) in an embassy were tagged.

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.9  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.8    one month ago
Our sovereign US soil is attacked by taggers and you feel that is worthy of capital punishment. Since none of the taggers were killed you keeping repeating the same stupid bullshit makes you look ignorant of facts and what really happened. with all the news coverage how can you still be so woefully ignorant of what happened?  You keep saying the same thing over and over, it doesn't change things. And you keep repeating the same question and your inability to grasp the simple point is amazing. You are still happy that someone was killed because a wall(s) in an embassy were tagged. How can you be this ignorant of what happened?  FFS educate yourself before responding, you look uninfomed and quite foolish at this point.

Only a fucking moron would call this tagging. or a partisan tool.

256256256256

And before you ask another stupid fucking question, If you are the member of a foreign military or a Non-US Citizen and a  member of a terrorist organization and you do this to a US Embassy, you deserve the death Penalty. No trial, No Jury.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.10  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @4.1.9    one month ago
And before you ask another stupid fucking question, If you are the member of a foreign military or a Non-US Citizen and a  member of a terrorist organization and you do this to a US Embassy, you deserve the death Penalty.

Death to all who commit misdemeanors against America!!!  Understand what you are saying.

Are you allowing other countries these same rights?  If a U.S. citizen (military reservist) defaces a foreign embassy here in America, you would support a missile strike against that citizen?

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.11  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.10    one month ago
Death to all who commit misdemeanors against America!!!  Understand what you are saying.

[Deleted] That isn't what you are saying right?

        Are you allowing other countries these same rights? 

You don't allow rights, so your premise is false, and very progressive. No I wouldn't support a foreign country hitting us with a missile strike, I would level their country, because I'm not a pussy  You would send them a pallet of cash to buy them off like Obama.  the main difference is we are in a war zone in Iraq, and the military has the right to defend itself. have you not been following the news? 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.12  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @4.1.11    one month ago
Only an idiot would think and armed assault with arson is a misdemeanor, That isn't what you are saying right?

Armed assault had nothing to do with your statement.  Are you trying to move the goalposts because you cannot support your original claim???

You said:

SO the sovereign US soil is attacked, the attackers spray paint Soliemani is our leader on the embassy, and trump kills the leader and the left is outraged.

Address your own statement and stop trying to make up additional shit!

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.13  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.12    one month ago
Armed assault had nothing to do with your statement.  Are you trying to move the goalposts because you cannot support your original claim???

Wow, Just wow. here is my original statement,

SO the sovereign US soil is attacked

past tense: attacked; past participle: attacked
  1. take aggressive action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force, typically in a battle or war.

Part 2,

the attackers spray paint Soliemani is our leader on the embassy,

  This is the perpetrators confession on who their leader is and who ordered the attack.

I haven't changed a damn thing, but you are continuing to fail. talk about graffiti again. that ones hilariously ignorant.

So why do you feel that African Americans are inferior because they can't get an ID to vote? Why are you failing to answer this simple question?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.14  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @4.1.13    one month ago
SO the sovereign US soil is attacked ,

Your argument is so weak you refuse to fully quote yourself.

SO the sovereign US soil is attacked, the attackers spray paint  Soliemani is our leader on the embassy, and trump kills the leader and the left is outraged.

Then you have to cherry pick a word's definition........wow

https://www.merriam-webster.com/

Definition of attack
transitive verb

1: to set upon or work against forcefully attack an enemy fortification


2: to assail with unfriendly or bitter words a politician verbally attacked by critics


3: to begin to affect or to act on injuriously plants attacked by aphids


4a: to set to work on attack a problem
b: to begin to eat (food) eagerly At the table he attacked his meal with such singleminded ferocity as to be, as Boswell put it, disgusting to those whose sensations were delicate.
— Donald R. DeGlopper


5 chess : to threaten (a piece) with immediate capture

the attackers spray paint Soliemani is our leader on the embassy,

Which you stated deserves capital punishment.

This is the perpetrators confession on who their leader is and who ordered the attack.

To attack the wall of the embassy with paint according to you.

I haven't changed a damn thing, but you are continuing to fail. talk about graffiti again. that ones hilariously ignorant

Definition of graffiti
transitive verb

: to draw graffiti on : to deface with graffiti
graffitied walls

AND AGAIN YOUR QUOTE:

SO the sovereign US soil is attacked, the attackers spray paint Soliemani is our leader on the embassy , and trump kills the leader and the left is outraged.

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.15  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.14    one month ago

Again you ignore the pictures showing it wasn't graffiti to double down on an ignorant talking point. Fail at deflection. 

I'm glad trump droned the worthless POS.  after 100's of Americans deaths at the shitheads direction.

      Then you have to cherry pick a word's definition.......

HAHAHAHAHAHHA   looking in a mirror? because you are 100% wrong again! I know exactly what i meant when I wrote "attack" and picked the definition you. you on the other hand have "Cherry Picked" the most worthless ignorant definition that best fits your completely flawed interpretation of what I wrote. I love the hubris tho. I write it, I give you the definition, and you still insist that you know what i meant  better than me. Laughable ignorant, but bonus points for the hubris.

the attackers spray paint Soliemani is our leader on the embassy,

Which you stated deserves capital punishment.

Can anybody other than [Deleted] see where I said Graffite deserves capital punishment? anybody at all?

You have failed completely here. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.16  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @4.1.15    one month ago
Again you ignore the pictures showing it wasn't graffiti to double down on an ignorant talking point.

I don't give a fuck about the pictures, this is about your statement.  The fact that you keep trying to move the goal posts away from your statement, just shows that you cannot justify what you said.

I'm glad trump droned the worthless POS.  after 100's of Americans deaths at the shitheads direction.

Which, again, has nothing to do with your statement.

HAHAHAHAHAHHA   looking in a mirror? because you are 100% wrong again! I know exactly what i meant when I wrote "attack" and picked the definition you. you on the other hand have "Cherry Picked" the most worthless ignorant definition that best fits your completely flawed interpretation of what I wrote.

You provided 1 possible definition, I provided every definition provided by Merriam-Webster.  Since you did not provide any source for your definition, I must assume you made it up yourself, making yours absolutely worthless.  I assume that you noticed that I provided a link to mine to prove I gave all variations of the word's definition by one of the leaders worldwide.

Can anybody other than Ozzwald with his over active imagination see where I said Graffite deserves capital punishment? anybody at all?

Just exactly how many times do I need to quote you, your full quote?  I even left your random capitalization of the "O" in "so", just to remain accurate! 

Or are you now claiming that Trump shouldn't have killed him for having people graffiti the walls of the embassy?

SO the sovereign US soil is attacked, the attackers spray paint Soliemani is our leader on the embassy , and trump kills the leader and the left is outraged.
 
 
 
loki12
4.1.17  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.16    one month ago

I posted the only definition that was relevant to what I was saying. But you continue to spin away. It’s funny watching you desperately fumbling around to prove something I never said!

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.18  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @4.1.17    one month ago
I posted the only definition that was relevant to what I was saying.

[Deleted]

It’s funny watching you desperately fumbling around to prove something I never said!

So now you are claiming that you never said....

SO the sovereign US soil is attacked, the attackers spray paint Soliemani is our leader on the embassy , and trump kills the leader and the left is outraged.

You just plain have no defense, or support, of what you said, when I refuse to let you change the subject and deflect from your quote.

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.19  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.18    one month ago

So you lack the ability to even use google, and you are still trying to tell me what I meant by what I wrote.   Sadly pathetic and i I am now flagging for trolling.

https://www.google.com/search?q=attacked&rlz=1C1GCEB_enUS851US854&oq=attacked&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0l5.3874j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

loki and Ozzwald - this discussion has become too personal.  Civility, please.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.20  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @4.1.19    one month ago
So you lack the ability to even use google, and you are still trying to tell me what I meant by what I wrote.

[Deleted]  From your own link...

at·tack
/əˈtak/
  1. take aggressive action against (a place or enemy forces) with weapons or armed force, typically in a battle or war.
  2. (of a person or animal) act against (someone or something) aggressively in an attempt to injure or kill.
  3. (of a disease, chemical substance, or insect) act harmfully on.
  4. criticize or oppose fiercely and publicly.
  5. begin to deal with (a problem or task) in a determined and vigorous way.
  6. make an aggressive or forceful attempt to score a goal or point, or gain or exploit an advantage in a game against an opposing team or player.

You are claiming #1, however since your statement only referenced the graffiti on the walls, #4 or #5 would fit your statement better.

Remember, again, this is your statement:

SO the sovereign US soil is attacked, the attackers spray paint Soliemani is our leader on the embassy , and trump kills the leader and the left is outraged.

You only reference spray painting the walls.

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.21  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.20    one month ago

[Deleted

[Impasse!]

[Use the Impasse function.  You may not make a final comment before issuing an impasse.]

 
 
 
It Is ME
5  It Is ME    2 months ago

"To defeat them, we must become like them."

The "Military" knows that too !

"According to US Army Lt Gen H. R. McMaster, who as a captain commanded an armored cavalry troop in the Gulf War, one of his M2 Bradleys had a picture of Erwin Rommel inside. An Iraqi officer prisoner asked the Bradley's driver why he had a picture of America's enemy inside his armored personnel carrier. The driver replied that if the Iraqis had studied Rommel's campaigns perhaps he wouldn't be an American prisoner.
McMasters reported this exchange in the documentary, "Inside the Kill Box". 

In "War", Ya shoot the person with the "Gun", even if he drops it later.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6  Tessylo    2 months ago

81850989_2519933551597634_84705398183407

 
 
 
Ronin2
6.1  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @6    2 months ago

Obama stopped Russia from doing what again? 

Annexing Crimea? No. Backing Russian separatists in Ukraine? No. Sending troops and an air craft carrier to support Assad in Syria? No.  Getting a naval port, and air bases in Syria? No. 

Obama stopped Iran from doing what again?

Building missiles capable of carrying nuclear payloads? No. Working on development of weapons grade uranium? No. Conducting terrorist attacks across the middle east and financing and training terrorist organizations? No.

Obama did reinsert troops back into Iraq- along with rearming and retraining the Iraqi military; two troops surges in Afghanistan- along with a horrendous SOFA agreement that tied the US to a weak, corrupt Afghan government; got the US entangled in the Syrian civil war; got the US entangled in the Yemen civil war; ousted a regime in Libya that posed no threat to the US (Britain and France would like to thank him for protecting their oil development contracts); and backed a coup of a legally elected pro Russian government in Ukraine- touching off their civil war.

Obama did a lot of things foreign policy wise; just not what you post claims he did.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1    2 months ago

You've got nothing but lies Ronin.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
6.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.1    2 months ago

Which part is a lie? Go ahead and point it out and I will provide facts to back up each one.

Go ahead. Obama is responsible for all of the things I listed.

Oh, I left one out. Obama conducted more extra judicial drone killings and caused more collateral damage than Bush Jr did. Including the targeting of assassination of two US citizens w/o a trial.

You need to find some different horses to whisper to you. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1.2    2 months ago

Everything you say.  Don't bother providing anything, it's all lies.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
7  Tacos!    2 months ago
Trump’s plan is to collapse the moral space between America and its enemies.

Yeah, I think he's felt that way for a while. He campaigned on the idea of going after the families of terrorists.

It's not because he wants us to be like them, but because he wants to defeat our enemies and he sees that we are handicapped by playing by a different set of rules. He's not wrong about that.

That has been the case in varying degrees for a long time. We have a history of not firing until fired upon, for example. We try to target military targets only and minimize civilian casualties. We avoid targeting non-military cultural sites. The tactic of human shields works very effectively on us. 

The people we are fighting abide by none of these rules and it can be very frustrating. There's an argument to be made that we could defeat them very quickly if we played by the same rules they did. I guess the choice you make depends on what your priorities are. Do you want to suffer attacks indefinitely or are you willing to compromise some of your principles to end the fighting?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8  Nerm_L    one month ago

The article does explain what Trump is doing.  Trump has not threatened Iran with war.  Trump has not called for removal of a rogue government.  Trump has not called for liberating the Iranian people.  Trump has not threatened a geopolitical struggle for control of the region.  Trump has threatened to respond in kind; tit for tat retaliation.  Trump has threatened to play the game according to Iran's rules.  How will terrorists defend against terrorism?

Trump has threatened to fight Iran's state sponsored terrorism with state sponsored terrorism.  That's the game changer that breaks the status quo.

Trump provoked the Iranian regime and then drew a red line.  That's what Iran does.  Trump changed the status quo.  The United States isn't threatening to march on Tehran with military might; the United States is threatening to unleash truck bombs on the Iranian people.  Trump is making an asymmetrical threat just as Iran does.

Trump is threatening to do to Iran what Iran has done to others.  Trump has made any retaliation by the United States as unpredictable as Iran's retaliation.  Trump has leveled the playing field and taken away Iran's advantage.  Iran plays by Iran's rules; Trump has threatened to play by Iran's rules, too.

The Medieval European notion that good triumphs over evil is why the United States has been trapped in a Middle Eastern quagmire.  The status quo isn't accomplishing anything.  Terrorists establish the rules of engagement; playing by different rules won't accomplish anything, the terrorists always have the advantage because they are playing their own game.

The United States needs to either change the status quo or withdraw from the Middle East.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


CB
Raven Wing
Freefaller
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Steve Ott
Gordy327
squiggy
igknorantzrulz
Wheel


35 visitors