Nile Gardiner, National Post: It's time to admit that Trump's foreign policy has been a triumph
The president may lack the eloquence of JFK or the ideological drive of Reagan, but he ensures the U.S. continues to lead as the world's superpower.
When Donald Trump was elected America’s 45th president in November 2016 the world took a collective deep breath. This was a man derided by his critics as an isolationist, woefully out of his depth on foreign policy matters, and imbued with a supposedly dangerous and reckless nationalism. European leaders queued up to condemn the new leader of the free world in the court of international opinion. But a year into his presidency Trump’s actual record has been far more effective than his detractors predicted. “America First” has not resulted in a U.S. withdrawal from the world. Far from it.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: I do not share Nile Gardiner's enthusiasm that President Trump's foreign policy has been a triumph. The Islamic State may have been defeated under his watch, but the other wars continue to grind on, terrorism is still a threat, and our relations with many countries are still the same.
3 comments:
Too early.
Trump wants his war, Bush had Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama had Libya and Syria. What war has Trump initiated since he has been the commander and chief of the biggest military force in the world?
WNU Editor,
I agree with you entirely. It is WAY to early to declare the president's foreign policy a success.
I am glad Mr. Gardiner is not influencing US foregin policy. He appears to attack things like "isolationism" and "nationalism." Essentially what this is are nations representing their intersts and advancing the wellfare of their own people instead of squandering their resources, blood, and treasure on those things and people that undermine their interests. The Europeans and others feared and loathed DJT because they feared he might not be their b!tch boy as past US presidents have been.
Mr. Gardiner also used nonsensical things to describe America such as "superpower" and "leader of the free world." The "free world" js a nebulous group of countries all with different interests. It'd be impossible for the US to lead it even if it had the military and economic capability to do so which it does not. It is unethical for others to place such a burden on America and it's people. It is unethical and stupid for the US government to place such a burden on us.
America can only lead America. It can and should work with others where and when there are common intersts and such cooperation is possible. It lacks the resources or the capability to "lead" something as vast and heterogeneous as "the free world." Thankfully DJT seems to have rejected such foolish thinking.
Mr. Gardiner goes on to describe America as a "superpower." The US military is hardly assured of being the most powerful on earth much less a "superpower," Thankfully DJT has rejected such destructive thinking. He did use the term "immensely powerful" to describe the US military which could be accurate for a country with a large working nuclear arsenal assuming ours works which candidate Trump was right to question whether ours works. He says he uograded it. If so, tge "immensely powerful" description would ve accurate but would also describe the militaries of several other countries. The false notion of America as a "superpower" is dangerous, destructive, and has no place in the formulation of US foreign policy.
Mr. Gardiner seems to think we need more conflict with Russia and that we should be standing with chumps like Ukraine and crazies like Poland. Actualky the fact that relations with Russia have deteriorated further is an immense disappointment. Better relations with Russia would be extremely helpful in dealing with the threats posed by North Korea and Iran.
On the plus side for DJT more progress has been made on the diplomatic front with North Korea than I ever thought possible. There is still much that can go wrong and it is WAY to early to call the efforts a success.
Also, a bit off topic, but the the tax cuts and regulatory reforms are baby steos in the right direction. In neither area does it go nearly far enough and how much more he is able to do remains to be seen. As such, it's way to early call these policies a success either.
In summary, Mr. Gardiner would likely have no place in a Trump Administration nor should he. In fact, this man should have no place formulating anything as serious as foreign policy or in any serious endeavor for that matter.
At best, the grade for Trump's presidenxy for his first year would be "incomplete." Then again he has survived his first year. Many of his critics thought he wouldn't!!
Post a Comment