Home | About | Donate

Obama, Trump, and the Future of US Foreign Policy


#1

Obama, Trump, and the Future of US Foreign Policy

Edward Hunt

Amid all the uncertainty about what a Trump presidency means for the future role of the United States in the world, one possibility is that Trump will embrace some variant of the policies that have been pursued for the past few decades by the nation’s foreign policy establishment.


#2

So in essence...
"Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."


#3

Is this supposed to be good news? Gee, I thought one of the reasons (other) people voted for him was that he had a less aggressive foreign policy attitude. Continuing to dump dollars into military dominance depresses the hell out of me.


#4

If for every ISIS fighter and Muslim civilian killed, ten more are made, how is it possible that leading politicians think they can win such a war with more killing? If one's answer is, "we'll wipe them out", one would have to wipe out 1.6 billion Muslims, in America too. Or does one really think that "if we hit them over there we won't have to hit them over here"?

Follow the money.

Direct Democracy


#5

“Mr. Trump’s win foreshadowed an America more focused on its own affairs while leaving the world to take care of itself.” IF ONLY!!!!!
As for the indispensable nation- it is NOT. We do not need a global policeman who does as he pleases.


#6

So Mr Obama does not even notice that China and India have large populations BUT low per capita uses of energy, while the USA has HUUUGE usage and waste, getting resources from all over the globe for its "needs". This is an intelligent POTUS, pretending the USA is indispensable and GOOD, not a danger to the rest of the world.


#7

Peace, what a concept.


#8

Thank you Lady K, natureboy, rosemerry. I see few suggestions that, perhaps, we do not possess the credentials (unless you consider military dominance) to do what is right for the rest of the world,or, do we even suggest this? If not, NEVERMIND. I've always wondered why, if our ideology is so wonderful, why we've always had to kill, literally, thosewho attempted any other(particularly in Latin America, so geographically accessible). Although the rest of the world did express itself well on Iraq invasion, we usually do as we please without being challenged. I see us as being the bully of the world. I expect that it is a fear of economic and\or military reprisals that keeps the world mute, and we, the people of the U.S. condoning such with our silence.I have long felt that if frequently given enough electronic toys we don't care what the government does abroad. There, thank you, it's off my chest. I am not a commentator, and I am done,p.s. the words land redistribution have always resulted in a death sentence


#9

While probably no one really knows what in the hell to expect from a Trump presidency, it is very likely it won't be the continuation of foreign policy business as usual . For one thing, the neocons want to provoke a military showdown with Russia. They might be insane, but the neocons are not stupid, and they know the looming showdown in Syria -- had Clinton become President --- would lead, at least, to an air & naval battle in the Middle East between the U. S. and Russia. Indeed, the Obama Admin., the Clinton campaign, and the corporate mass media have been stoking an anti-Russian fervor for months. Some are even accusing Russia of hacking our election!
With President Trump, the U. S. and Russia will NOT go to war. They may well work together not just to defeat ISIS, but also al-Nusra and their allies. Notice how the corporate mass media focuses on ISIS but not the other. That is because al-Nusra and their allies are OUR guys in this fight. After all, once we "regime change" Assad to paradise, and defeat ISIS, who will run Syria? Two options: our allies al-Nusra, or American soldiers occupying yet another Muslim nation. I dare anyone to make the case this is a good plan, or even a minimally sane plan.


#11

The author's idea of "order in the world" is my idea of totalviolence and destruction! I personally think the author is a paid American propagandist.


#12

In keeping with most of the intelligent commentary below, I agree with Archie1954 that Edward Hunt sounds like a defender of American Exceptionalism. Once again, the electorate's desire for an end to "business as usual" which Trump (and indeed Obama) both supposedly represented has been trod underfoot. Say anything to get elected, and the saps fall for it every time! Look at Clinton and her new-found opposition to TPP. Sadly, Bernie Sanders did represent a slight hope of change - though he too kept well clear of criticizing the military industrial complex. Only Jill Stein had the guts to say: "People, Peace & Planet before Profit". Sadly, if any President dares challenge the MIC, then watch out for lone nut shooters from 6th floor windows. Back in 1962, Eisenhower warned of the dangers of the MIC then JFK understood what he was up against during the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Despite the fact that he saved the planet from nuclear holocaust in October 1962, he had denied the generals their war with Russia (100 millions Russian deaths to only 20 million American) and he knew then he was a marked man. How insane are these self-same hawks when they actually planned to use the assassination of JFK as a False Flag op to get their war with Russia (remember how Iswald was thoroughly sheep-dipped as a communist etc.). The Coup d'Etat of 22nd November reigns supreme. God Bless America. You need it. God keep America from the rest of us.


#13

Typo Alert. Eisenhowers Valedictory speech was of course Jan 17th 1961