America First and a 2 tier NATO?

[mindlight]

The resignation of general Matthis has important implications for Americas global posture and for the NATO alliance:

"Defense Secretary Jim Mattis resigned on Thursday while delivering a stunning rebuke to President Donald Trump, expressing differences on issues including the president's treatment of U.S. allies and the need for a "resolute" approach to Russia.

"Because you have the right to have a secretary of defense whose views are better aligned on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position," Mattis told Trump in his resignation letter.

The highly public end to Mattis' two years as Pentagon leader came a day after Trump announced an abrupt pullout of U.S. forces from Syria, a move that shocked allies in the region and knocked military commanders off guard. It also followed reports that Trump is poised to order a similarly swift withdrawal from Afghanistan. "

Mattis breaks with Trump in resignation letter

It appears that Trump is planning on a number of things:

1) An almost complete withdrawal from non friendly countries in the Middle East including Syria and Afghanistan.
2) A more friendly posture towards Russia.

This comes on top of previous calls for allies to raise their defence budgets and the prospects of American troop withdrawals from Germany.

US considering troop withdrawal from Germany, report says | DW | 30.06.2018

Basically the new and now unfettered Trump policy looks like an increasingly isolationist America First policy. There remains a commitment to allies that have value for America like Britain, Israel, Saudia Arabia, Poland. But an increasing reluctance to invest in the security of countries where that is not clearly the case e.g. Germany, Afghanistan or Syria.

Is the result in effect a 2 tier NATO. The new policy seems to be driven by isolationist sentiments in the USA, by near fiscal bankruptcy of an economy that has borrowed too heavily for far too long and whose international credit is running out.

Which allies could trust that a Trump administration would honour their article 5 commitment to NATO and which allies cannot?

Is the Trump approach the best one to deal with the costs of Americas global overextension?

Would not a better one to be to work with Americas allies while cutting Americas own military budget and working to sort out Americas financial problems?

Even if you halved Americas defence spending it would remain the worlds preeminent superpower, combined with a strategy of cultivating rather than destroying Americas friendships that would also not jeopardise Americas security interests.

What also worries me here is the naïve and woefully ill prepared state of German political opinion on Americas military presence here. More Germans now want America out than in. BUt at the same time most Germans want to see cuts in their own defence budget. The German people seem content to write themselves out of the NATO alliance at the same time as Trump is actively pushing for a 2 tier NATO that may exclude them and other countries that fail to meet the 2% budget commitment.

 

[Whyayeman]

One problem for us in the UK is that policy changes just keep on coming without warning and certainly without consulting allies. The latest change is the sudden and incomprehensible announcement that US forces will pull out of Syria. I think that in practice Kurdish forces confronting - and apparently - defeating ISIS will lose air support from America. They will most likely come under attack from the Turkish Army.

European countries traditionally friendly to USA do not understand the reasoning behind this. It looks from here as if America has simply abandoned its fight against terrorism.

 

[mindlight]

One problem for us in the UK is that policy changes just keep on coming without warning and certainly without consulting allies. The latest change is the sudden and incomprehensible announcement that US forces will pull out of Syria. I think that in practice Kurdish forces confronting - and apparently - defeating ISIS will lose air support from America. They will most likely come under attack from the Turkish Army.

European countries traditionally friendly to USA do not understand the reasoning behind this. It looks from here as if America has simply abandoned its fight against terrorism.

The only reason I can see that makes any sense is that Trump has done some kind of deal with Russia and Turkey as these are the main beneficiaries.

But what did he get in exchange?

He simply abandoned his Kurdish allies and without consultation with the French or British who have also been fighting there.

As Romney says he is a man of policies ( or rather deals) and hiring and firing. But he has
Not demonstrated any commitment to the basic promises America has made and he not a figure of good character that the free world could trust as its leader.

He has done some good things but these have to be weighed against careless and foolish decisions like this one.

 

[Whyayeman]

Trump has done some kind of deal with Russia and Turkey

This would be a secret deal, which sounds like a betrayal of America's allies and friends to me. If he treats his friends so carelessly he will further alienate himself - and ultimately his country - from America's oldest and soundest allies, the NATO countries and the West generally.

 

[FenderTL5]

European countries traditionally friendly to USA do not understand the reasoning behind this.

That's because there is no reasoning behind this. Trump readily proclaims that he makes decisions based on his "gut/instincts."

 

[Whyayeman]

Hmm ...
That is worrying.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, as written in Scripture, ....
"


"


footnote: for the decoder ring , if any are still available, request one from Jim Searcy, c/o Greece, or wherever he was last known before he passed on. It was way way way too much information for me to handle/digest.

 

[Albion]

This would be a secret deal, which sounds like a betrayal of America's allies and friends to me. If he treats his friends so carelessly he will further alienate himself - and ultimately his country - from America's oldest and soundest allies, the NATO countries and the West generally.

1. Get all the facts before deciding. I have heard several other explanations for the move.

2. Don't reach a conclusion about the wisdom of it before the deed is fully accomplished.

 

[Whyayeman]

No, I think the allies of America in this affair must make decisions now about what is happening in Syria, not wait till American forces have abandoned the field.
And in the field of foreign affairs - and especially of war - nobody ever can be certain about having all the facts.

 

[mindlight]

1. Get all the facts before deciding. I have heard several other explanations for the move.

Like what? Costs? Bring the troops home isolationist sentiment?

 

[Whyayeman]

It is odd to posit a secret alliance between Russia, Turkey and USA. USA is already an open ally of Turkey through NATO. Are we to suppose Turkey is betraying its NATO allies too?

Much more likely, from a European perspective, is that Trump has gone off half-[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] once again by making policy up as he goes along. The resignation of General Matthis suggests this.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

That's because there is no reasoning behind this. Trump readily proclaims that he makes decisions based on his "gut/instincts."

The reasoning would be that the US has no good reason to be in Syria, and never did. Especially considering US intervention was never authorized by Congress. I believe British Parliament rejected intervention when the matter was put to them too.

This been in the pipeline for more than a decade - starting with the results of the 2006 midterms, really. The last three presidential elections were won by candidates who promised to keep aloof of foreign conflicts, particularly in the Middle East, against robustly interventionist candidates. If there's any thing to be surprising, it's that we only now have a President who is disregarding the counsel of the deep state and keeping his promise to the American people.

If "America's allies" means Britain and France, well, it's up to them what they want to do, but I would suggest they get out too.

 

[mindlight]

It is odd to posit a secret alliance between Russia, Turkey and USA. USA is already an open ally of Turkey through NATO. Are we to suppose Turkey is betraying its NATO allies too?

Much more likely, from a European perspective, is that Trump has gone off half-[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] once again by making policy up as he goes along. The resignation of General Matthis suggests this.

I sincerely do not know. This could be driven by Trump managing the expectations and promises of his domestic constituency. But the main beneficiaries from this decision are Russia and Turkey. The biggest loss is incurred by the Kurds. This could be completely irrelevant to Trump. But if so this is still worrying

 

[mindlight]

The reasoning would be that the US has no good reason to be in Syria, and never did. Especially considering US intervention was never authorized by Congress. I believe British Parliament rejected intervention when the matter was put to them too.

This been in the pipeline for more than a decade - starting with the results of the 2006 midterms, really. The last three presidential elections were won by candidates who promised to keep aloof of foreign conflicts, particularly in the Middle East, against robustly interventionist candidates. If there's any thing to be surprising, it's that we only now have a President who is disregarding the counsel of the deep state and keeping his promise to the American people.

If "America's allies" means Britain and France, well, it's up to them what they want to do, but I would suggest they get out too.

The British voted in a different context. Noone wants to get embroiled in the conflict. Although the Iranians are quite keen on it. But special forces and air support were probably very helpful to the Kurds.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

There's things here that don't make sense. Why put the Kurds on a pedestal? Why the sudden demonization of Turkey? From the same people who accused Trump of alienating NATO allies at that? Turkey is in fact a NATO ally, whereas the Kurds aren't even a recognized country.

It seems to be a reluctance to admit that what they are really pushing for is a proxy war against Russia and Iran.

 

[Whyayeman]

Why put the Kurds on a pedestal?

I'm certainly not doing that. Yet they are being abandoned and betrayed by USA.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

I'm certainly not doing that. Yet they are being abandoned and betrayed by USA.

What do you think the USA owes the Kurds?

 

[mindlight]

There's things here that don't make sense. Why put the Kurds on a pedestal? Why the sudden demonization of Turkey? From the same people who accused Trump of alienating NATO allies at that? Turkey is in fact a NATO ally, whereas the Kurds aren't even a recognized country.

It seems to be a reluctance to admit that what they are really pushing for is a proxy war against Russia and Iran.

The Kurds protected Christians during the ISIS debacle as did Assad unlike just about every other Muslim actor in the field. The Turks have not been much of an ally to NATO for some time contributing little to the 2 gulf wars and Afghanistan for instance. The suffering of the Kurds inside Turkey and because of Turkey, under Sadam and through the wars since has earnt them their own country. They are pro Western in a sea of enemies. Under Erdogan Turkey is increasingly Islamist and anti Israeli.

 

[Whyayeman]

What do you think the USA owes the Kurds?

Well, if you make a promise of support, you should keep your word. If that becomes impossible you should give fair warning. The Kurds have been betrayed by USA. There are historic precedents for such betrayals and all of them are dishonourable.

 

[mindlight]

Well it looks like, in the wake of so many resignations and criticism of the withdrawal plan, that Trump has revised his plan. Now withdrawal looks like being conditional on final defeat of ISIS and gives guarantees to the Kurds. If this is what happens happy with the US policy stance here.

US withdrawal from Syria 'conditional'