This Is Difficult For Neo-cons

[mark46]

The foreign policy of the US has been fairly consistent since WWII. One can reasonably say that presidents like Obama didn't execute this policy very well. Unfortunately, he really believed his campaign promises.
============
Trump has openly attacked Bush, and at one time suggested that he be impeached. Trump's current position is that he has always been against the war, and Bush, knowing that there was false intelligence, got us into two wars that we shouldn't be in.

His current idea are to scale make our commitments to NATO, and to the Middle East (after a swift attack wiping out ISIS).

Trump wants less of a military presence in the Middle East and in Asia. He would rather South Korea, japan and others defend themselves, with nuclear weapons if necessary.

And of course, he wants to work with Putin, who will certainly support Trump's efforts to downsize our foreign entanglements.

Make no mistake, I understand that t\Trump wants a stronger military to defend our borders, defend the wall, and to vet all Muslims and Middle Easterners who chose to want to visit the US.
=========
THE NEO-CONS HAVE A CLEAR CHOICE
If they believe that security is the most important issue, AND that their understanding of the military and security is the best US foreign policy, then they cannot allow Trump to be Commander in Chief. Congress can block his really silly domestic ideas, and work with him on others. But being president is first and foremost being Commander In Chief.

Neo-cons cannot accept Trump as Commander In Chief. Some might come to the convention. Some might even try to influence the platform and Trump himself. However, they understand that it is pretty hopeless. Trump is a follower of Buchanan. America First is a sentiment that has been around since before WWII.
===========
and just BTW, Wall Street and economic conservatives CANNOT accept Trump's protectionism, tariff and anti-free trade policies.
===========
There will be a lot of "backing the nominee of the party"
and very little actual support.

 

[Sistrin]

You should have just e-mailed this in.

 

[wing2000]

I find the premise of your argument unclear:

The foreign policy of the US has been fairly consistent since WWII. One can reasonably say that presidents like Obama didn't execute this policy very well. Unfortunately, he really believed his campaign promises.

Can you describe what you mean by a fairly consistent foreign policy? [/quote]

The U.S. has consistently supported NATO (Cold War and beyond) and Israel....Obama continue those policies...

 

[mark46]

I find the premise of your argument unclear:



Can you describe what you mean by a fairly consistent foreign policy?

The U.S. has consistently supported NATO (Cold War and beyond) and Israel....Obama continue those policies...[/QUOTE]
Are you suggesting that Obama has been successful in executing foreign policy? His campaign pledge was to get us out of the wars in the Middle East.

Obama withdrew too quickly from Iraq and then call the remaining troops "advisors". He does to this day. And they are indeed advisors. They are all combat troops, as last week's dead SEAL's family will attest. In addition, he refuse to give arms to the Kurds. He simply hands them to the Iraqi government, with the hope that some will get to the Kurds.

Obama drew a line with Assad in Syria, and then needed the Russians to bail him out.

Obama has waffled so much on involvement in fighting terrorism in Syria. He refused to arm any of the rebels. For years, he said that they really didn't exist and that any help might be helping future terrorists. The situation was so bad the Russians had to send troops to support their bases, and the Assad government so that the ISIL and the others wouldn't get any stronger. Then, the US helped the non-existent rebels, spending million to train a dozen soldiers.

Obama refused to even support the idea of a no-fly zone, an idea that has worked so well in the past in Iraq. There are millions of refugees in Jordan and Turkey. Perhaps, there wouldn't have been millions in Europe if Obama had supported a no-fly zone, or a neutral zone (the Turkish idea).

Obama has done reasonably well in Afghanistan.

Obama has done much well in his use of drones and his targeting of Al Qaeda and ISIL leadership, and in pinpoint strikes.

Obama has also has done well in building alliances, even without the participation of the Saudis. The UAE is a great ally.

But, overall, we'd be much further along if Obama had listened to his military or the Clinton.
=========
The bottom line is that Obama's goals are consistent with those of past presidents. His leadership and his execution was different than Bush's.

Obviously, Bush made much more serious mistakes, causing many, many deaths and much agony. But he too was following our general foreign policy. For Trump to have called for is impeachment is enough to disqualify him from being commander In Chief.

 

[wing2000]

The U.S. has consistently supported NATO (Cold War and beyond) and Israel....Obama continue those policies...

Are you suggesting that Obama has been successful in executing foreign policy? His campaign pledge was to get us out of the wars in the Middle East.

My question was, "Can you describe what you mean by a fairly consistent foreign policy?"

[/quote]
=========

The bottom line is that Obama's goals are consistent with those of past presidents. His leadership and his execution was different than Bush's.

Again, what are these policy goals?

Obviously, Bush made much more serious mistakes, causing many, many deaths and much agony. But he too was following our general foreign policy. For Trump to have called for is impeachment is enough to disqualify him from being commander In Chief.

general foreign policy....is?

 

[wing2000]

....but to your point, yes, those who ascribe to the Neo-Con view of the world have to be offended when Trump says:

“The war in Iraq is a disaster. I was against it from the beginning. We should have never been there.”

— Donald Trump, interview with Greta van Susteren, Fox News, May 11, 2016

While I agree with him, Trump has one problem: There is no public record of his opposition to the war prior to the invasion.

 

[mark46]

I find the premise of your argument unclear:



Can you describe what you mean by a fairly consistent foreign policy?

We used to have the understanding that fighting stopped at the water's edge. The policies of Bush, Clinton, and Bush were close indeed. We may be close to evaluate Obama. All supported engagement, free trade agreements, globalization, actively honored our agreements and supporting our allies, promoted democratic institutions, supported human rights (especially those of women and chikdrebn). All supported economic development aid, disaster reief, humanitarian military efforts, non-proliferation, and fighting terrorists throughout the world.

Hillary Clinton would feel comfortable as part of the administration of any of these presidents.

Trump on the other hand has espoused a very different foreign and military policy, the most significant set of changes since WWII.

From wiki

The U.S. has consistently supported NATO (Cold War and beyond) and Israel....Obama continue those policies...[/QUOTE]
The officially stated goals of the foreign policy of the United States, including all the Bureaus and Offices in the United States Department of State,[1] as mentioned in the Foreign Policy Agenda of the Department of State, are "to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community."[2] In addition, the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs states as some of its jurisdictional goals: "export controls, including nonproliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear hardware; measures to foster commercial interaction with foreign nations and to safeguard American business abroad; international commodity agreements; international education; and protection of American citizens abroad and expatriation."

 

[Chesterton]

What's a neo-con, anyway?

 

[mark46]

What's a neo-con, anyway?

neo-conservatives
the foreign policy of the Bush's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

 

[Chesterton]

neo-conservatives
the foreign policy of the Bush's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

So it means "conservative". Not sure why we say "neo" as if conservatism had completely died in the '60's.

 

[mark46]

So it means "conservative". Not sure why we say "neo" as if conservatism had completely died in the '60's.

There is actually a considerable difference between the anti government conservatives and the neocons like Gingrich and Bush who supported social programs like Bush's adding drug coverage to Medicare. Both Gingrich (and his budget director Kasich) and Bush support many increasing to educational programs.

These conservatives believe in smaller government, and in government reforms. However, they also believe that there is a place for government in providing a safety net and civil rights for our citizens. Their biggest claim to fame was an interventionist foreign policy. They believed that the US has an important role in the world in defense, humanitarian efforts and in promoting democracy. They strongly believe in free trade and in globalism. The Bush's believe in all these things. Curiously, so does Bill Clinton.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

So it means "conservative". Not sure why we say "neo" as if conservatism had completely died in the '60's.

For "neoconservative" think liberal from the 1960s that didn't support the positions of the New Left.

"The Neocon Invasion"
Sam Francis, The New American, August 5, 1996

 

[Chesterton]

For "neoconservative" think liberal from the 1960s that didn't support the positions of the New Left.

"The Neocon Invasion"
Sam Francis, The New American, August 5, 1996

Right, but that just seems to me like - you were a liberal, and you changed to being a conservative. You're not a new kind of conservative. Unless, as in the examples Mark gave, maybe you're just a bad, weak conservative.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Right, but that just seems to me like - you were a liberal, and you changed to being a conservative. You're not a new kind of conservative. Unless, as in the examples Mark gave, maybe you're just a bad, weak conservative.

It's like, you were a liberal in the '60s, then a conservative in the '80s, not so much because your beliefs changed, but because the accepted definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" changed.

Neocons, then, are not really conservatives at all, and driving them from the party can only be a good thing. Let them go back to the Dems, at least then they won't be able to put up a pretense of being a genuine alternative.

While I agree with him, Trump has one problem: There is no public record of his opposition to the war prior to the invasion.

There doesn't need to be. Why should you expect there to be a record of him opposing a war that hadn't even happened yet?

 

[mark46]

There doesn't need to be. Why should you expect there to be a record of him opposing a war that hadn't even happened yet?

????

There was a debate all across the country before Bush actually sent the troops in. Every politician was forced to weigh in. All who cared had stated their opinions.

Obviously, there are always opportunists to wait until they see what happens and then be for or against.

Clinton supported the war and that choice cost her the presidency. Trump has no need to take positions. His followers simply don't care.

 

[wing2000]

neo-conservatives
the foreign policy of the Bush's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Correction: The foreign policy of George W. Bush (Neocons: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle).

George H.W. Bush was not a Neo-con ....as evidenced by his refusal to remove Sadaam after he was kicked out of Kuwait. Bush Sr. understood the dangers of removing Sadaam.

 

[wing2000]

There doesn't need to be. Why should you expect there to be a record of him opposing a war that hadn't even happened yet?

Huh? It was pretty clear the Bush Administration was going to war in the months leading up to the invasion.

 

[Albion]

So it means "conservative". Not sure why we say "neo" as if conservatism had completely died in the '60's.

No, not Conservative.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Trump wants less of a military presence in the Middle East and in Asia. He would rather South Korea, japan and others defend themselves, with nuclear weapons if necessary.

Personally, I wouldn't trust Trump's finger hovering over the button... the entire point of the NPT is that the fewer people there are with the capability to trigger nuclear Armageddon, the better off we all are.

 

[Albion]

...the fewer people there are with the capability to trigger nuclear Armageddon, the better off we all are.

So Obama's decision to allow Iran to have the bomb, despite repeated assurances from both his and Bush's administrations that this would never be permitted, doesn't find favor with you?