╌>

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

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  john-russell  •  4 years 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
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    4 years 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
Sophomore Participates
1.1  katrix  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 years ago

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

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2  Ronin2    4 years 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
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @2    4 years 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
Professor Quiet
2.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    4 years 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.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
3  bbl-1    4 years ago

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

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.1  Ronin2  replied to  bbl-1 @3    4 years ago

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

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
3.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1    4 years ago

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

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
5  It Is ME    4 years 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
Professor Principal
6  Tessylo    4 years ago

81850989_2519933551597634_8470539818340712448_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_ohc=LWabY5cJehwAQkjAWxwtCIsi1-9GmWNg_w07WmcC-lzyAkUIYH1_DOYoQ&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=7bc685b8ec88620c656ff9224b54d9f7&oe=5E96948E

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.1  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @6    4 years 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
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1    4 years ago

You've got nothing but lies Ronin.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.1    4 years 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
Professor Principal
6.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1.2    4 years ago

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

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7  Tacos!    4 years 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
Professor Expert
8  Nerm_L    4 years 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.

 
 

Who is online





devangelical
Snuffy
evilone
Eat The Press Do Not Read It


76 visitors