Is Trump sane on (non trade) foreign policy?

[Kingpoleon]

-The Iraq War was a mistake(??Foreign Policy??)
-Have a large military but 'hopefully never use it'
-Putin is not an existential threat to our security
-We shouldn't pick a side in Syria (we lose either way)
-We shouldn't keep defending Korea/Japan/Germany/Saudi Arabia
-We shouldn't be paying for the defense/nation building of foreign countries
-Bomb ISIS
-Broadly seems to favor the 'Powell Doctrine': Don't get involved in conflicts often, but when we do, commit 100% and win decisively

I dont understand why the first one is such a big deal for everyone. I also dont understand the third one. I'm fine with intervening in Syria, but it would be wise to let a democratic rebellion emerge(we could fund it) so we don't do it against the people's will. I would say taking down ISIS is a good idea.

Agreeing with the things I didnt mark out.

[wolfsblood07]

Very, very sane on those key points.  We should implement each of those policies now.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

He contradicts himself on foreign policy every 10 minutes

[ag]

He may be beyond awful on trade, but he is 10 times worse on the rest of it. Beyond awful does not start describing how scared I am of him. It would take decades for the US and the rest of the world to overcome the consequences of his presidency, even if it is only one term. In fact, US position in the world might not be recoverable ever, if this happens. I am shuddering to think how many people will die as a result.

[Mike Thick]

It's a little sketchy, to put it mildly. This is also descriptive, in my opinion, of most of his other policies.

[wolfsblood07]

He may be beyond awful on trade, but he is 10 times worse on the rest of it. Beyond awful does not start describing how scared I am of him. It would take decades for the US and the rest of the world to overcome the consequences of his presidency, even if it is only one term. In fact, US position in the world might not be recoverable ever, if this happens. I am shuddering to think how many people will die as a result.

How can it be worse than what we have?  We fight wars and gain nothing, we don't even take the oil.  We spend billions to defend other nations and get nothing.  And our free trade agreements are a disaster.  

[Lyin' Steve]

Trump on foreign policy:
http://ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Foreign_Policy.htm

It's not utterly insane.  He has some loopy ideas though.

[Ljube]

He may be beyond awful on trade, but he is 10 times worse on the rest of it. Beyond awful does not start describing how scared I am of him. It would take decades for the US and the rest of the world to overcome the consequences of his presidency, even if it is only one term. In fact, US position in the world might not be recoverable ever, if this happens. I am shuddering to think how many people will die as a result.

What is your problem? Are you an American or not?
How many people were killed as a result of the policies of Hillary Clinton? More than 200000. I don't know the exact number. Plus she destroyed Libya and Syria and devastated Egypt and Iraq.

[The Last Northerner]

He may be beyond awful on trade, but he is 10 times worse on the rest of it. Beyond awful does not start describing how scared I am of him. It would take decades for the US and the rest of the world to overcome the consequences of his presidency, even if it is only one term. In fact, US position in the world might not be recoverable ever, if this happens. I am shuddering to think how many people will die as a result.

As opposed to dying in additional Middle Eastern wars and/or WW3 with Russia and creating additional refugee crisies if (almost) any other candidate were elected.

9/10 Trolling. Got me again.

[Sir Mohamed]

I seriously doubt it, although I agree with him that the middle-east policy of the US government has mainly been a disaster, especially under W. But the Trumpster has no clue about Putin, an autocrat. He annexed Crimea against international law and backs other militant groups in Ukraine (not to mention several other so called frozen conflicts in the region). He killed journalists and other critics. He puts domestic critics in jail. What he’s doing in Syria now is another example, how dangerous that man is. He isn’t bombing ISIS that much, he bombs the moderate US backed rebels and he is promoting the war in Aleppo to intensify the regugee crises to destabilize Europe. Trump is badly misjudging that.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The one foreign policy facet that unites all Republicans - and what makes them a fundamentally dangerous party - from Ron Paul and Buchanan to Trump's machismo, to the "establishment" wing, to the "WW3 now!" of people like Carly is unilateralism. To the GOP, America playing by other nation's rules is an affront to its sovereignty. That is why the population and establishment of US's allies (Israel and certain Eastern European nations aside) universally back the Democrats and treat the Republican Party with universal didsain. (and no it's not because of any hackneyed crap like "OMG IF SARKOZY/MERKEL/CAMERON WERE IN THE US THEY WOULD BE BERNIE SANDERS!!1!!")

The GWB Presidency's tendency  of unilateraism unleashed a tidal world of Anti-American sentiment through the world. For a while elections across the world were won by who could hate on Dubya the most. Thoroughly mediocre politicians like Schroeder were kept alive on the spectre of the Republican's arrogant views of the world. And this attitude has never diminished as the GOP has been locked out of power watching Obama (horror of horrors!) "apologise for the US" (witness the candidates bafflement at the idea other countries matter at all irt the Iran Deal).

Trump is the embodiment of this "foreign policy by id" perspective. Trump explicitly rules out being constrained by international law. He doesn't particularly care about established patterns or alienating allies - everything seems to be "do it because I feel like it" with him. And although I'm no fan with the "global establishment" by any means, such a thinking pattern would be dangerous for America's leading position in the world; it would inflame anti-American sentiment (indeed, my one potential scenario for a PM Corbyn would be if he were to pivot against the actions of a President Trump).

It would also be a very interesting departure for America. It would be kind of like going back to the days before Wilsonian liberal interventionism came into vogue and foreign policy was explicitly based around self-interest. (which would make Trump like Teddy Roosevelt )

[Leinad]

I'm okay with multilateralism, I just generally oppose foreign intervention.

I've never understood why Republicans think that Obama "apologizing for America" is the worst thing ever. I mean, do they think the US hasn't [screwed] stuff up big time? Or that our hand in destabalizing regions across the globe is a-okay?

Ditto with the "cutting the military budget" thing. Especially from people who say they're going to cut taxes and balance the budget. Mathematically, that requires cutting loads of spending to do both of those things. I have nothing against that, of course, but military spending would be one of the first things I'd cut. And okay, Rubiobot, our military is "the smallest it's been since before World War II." If that's true, that makes sense, because since that time we've constantly been trotting the globe spreading chaos. Our military spending per capita is twice as much as most countries already. Can't we afford to cut it some?

Again, as has been reiterated many times in this thread: the Republican Party, as a rule, is insane on foreign policy.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

A lot of American military is built along Cold War grounds. The nuclear defense policy is hilariously outdated, for a world where the major issue was trying to swagger over the USSR. I've never heard a decent argument that the whole triad couldn't just be replaced by a few defensive nuclear subs.

The defense of the high military spending is officially that being a hegemon inspires stability. Whether that has happened (or even if "stability" is the most important goal around) is another matter...

[Virginiá]

A lot of American military is built along Cold War grounds. The nuclear defense policy is hilariously outdated, for a world where the major issue was trying to swagger over the USSR. I've never heard a decent argument that the whole triad couldn't just be replaced by a few defensive nuclear subs.

The defense of the high military spending is officially that being a hegemon inspires stability. Whether that has happened (or even if "stability" is the most important goal around) is another matter...

I wouldn't want our entire defense for this to be reduced to a few subs. That's far easier to defeat and more prone to issues. If one sub breaks down or has other issues, a large chunk of your defense is offline.

If we're talking about costs, reducing the number of ICBMs might be a good start. Replace with smaller, more mobile hypersonic missiles with a very large amount of MIRVs per missile (on that note, I find the self-imposed MIRV limitations counterproductive because it's just offset by an increased number of missiles). In fact, reducing just about every part of the triad, if not eliminating specialized bombers entirely, wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea. We have a system built for a different time.

[°Leprechaun]

No.
Since when is torture sane?
Bomb ISIS? In other words who cares about all the innocent people who will be slaughtered in the process?

[Leinad]

A lot of American military is built along Cold War grounds. The nuclear defense policy is hilariously outdated, for a world where the major issue was trying to swagger over the USSR. I've never heard a decent argument that the whole triad couldn't just be replaced by a few defensive nuclear subs.

The defense of the high military spending is officially that being a hegemon inspires stability. Whether that has happened (or even if "stability" is the most important goal around) is another matter...

Indeed. I think that most Republicans think it's still the Cold War.

It's completely illogical to waste money on excess military spending. If you're going to tax people like you do and raise up a deficit, could you at least do it on, you know, helpful things?

That's the maddening stuff: they steal our elections, they steal our freedoms, and they steal our money so they can fund killings in the Middle East.

And yes, I don't think that's an overly extreme assesment of the situation.

[wolfsblood07]

No.
Since when is torture sane?
Bomb ISIS? In other words who cares about all the innocent people who will be slaughtered in the process?

Torture is sane when dealing with terrorists.  They don't play by the rules.  It is a brutal world we live in.

[The Free North]

No.
Since when is torture sane?
Bomb ISIS? In other words who cares about all the innocent people who will be slaughtered in the process?

I was thinking more in the vein of 'strategic airstrikes' against rather than Ted Cruz's 'make the sand glow' strategy.

Torture is more domestic policy than IR.

[°Leprechaun]

No.
Since when is torture sane?
Bomb ISIS? In other words who cares about all the innocent people who will be slaughtered in the process?

Torture is sane when dealing with terrorists.  They don't play by the rules.  It is a brutal world we live in.

Not according to John McCain, a respected POW and presidential candidate. He hasn't changed his mind on this.

[Leinad]

No.
Since when is torture sane?
Bomb ISIS? In other words who cares about all the innocent people who will be slaughtered in the process?

Torture is sane when dealing with terrorists.  They don't play by the rules.  It is a brutal world we live in.

Just because they act immoral doesn't mean we have to sink to their level.

Holy crap, that's how a two-year-old acts, not a supposedly "great" country!

[Torie]

I find it amusing that some think that Trump thinks seriously about foreign policy.

[°Leprechaun]

No.
Since when is torture sane?
Bomb ISIS? In other words who cares about all the innocent people who will be slaughtered in the process?

I was thinking more in the vein of 'strategic airstrikes' against rather than Ted Cruz's 'make the sand glow' strategy.

Torture is more domestic policy than IR.

What does "bomb the hell out of ISIS" mean. It certaintly doesn't sound like strategic airstrikes.

[°Leprechaun]

No.
Since when is torture sane?
Bomb ISIS? In other words who cares about all the innocent people who will be slaughtered in the process?

Torture is sane when dealing with terrorists.  They don't play by the rules.  It is a brutal world we live in.

Just because they act immoral doesn't mean we have to sink to their level.

Holy crap, that's how a two-year-old acts, not a supposedly "great" country!

Excellent point.

[°Leprechaun]

I find it amusing that some think that Trump thinks seriously about foreign policy.

I find it amusing that some think that Trump thinks.

[The Last Northerner]

Crab, if a leader were to act uniliterally to promote peace, that is somehow a bad thing? Would you have been against Russia telling the Entente to bugger off by signing a seperate peace treaty with Germany to save their people from further destruction? Or French withdrawl from unified NATO command? Or if the Israelis and Arabs talking without US interference?

Nations will act in their own self-intrests regardless of international opinion. This may inflame anti-American sentiment but not as much as senseless war, regardless of how multi-lateral support it has. (Obama's meddling and drone policy has caused US-approval in many ME to sink even below the Bush era)

And although I'm no fan with the "global establishment" by any means, such a thinking pattern would be dangerous for America's leading position in the world.

Not as much as dangerous to the future of multilateral military alliances like NATO.

It would also be a very interesting departure for America. It would be kind of like going back to the days before Wilsonian liberal interventionism came into vogue and foreign policy was explicitly based around self-interest. (which would make Trump like Teddy Roosevelt )

So when the US was a regional imperialist nation rather than a world one?

(indeed, my one potential scenario for a PM Corbyn would be if he were to pivot against the actions of a President Trump).

Are you implying this is a bad thing?