Drumpf Foreign Policy Speech: “Rambling To The Point Of Being Incoherent”

Drumpf’s sophomoric and laughingly “serious” foreign policy speech today was, needless to say, an embarrassment—and an embarrassment of riches for Pinocchio-awarding fact-checkers everywhere. I won’t bore you with the details now, scary as they are, but I will hand you a gift in the form of instant analysis provided on CNN by a very smart guy, Fareed Zakaria. After noting that Drumpf “stuck to his guns” in terms of a “populist, nationalist, protectionist” message, Zakaria then dropped the hammer:

It was sort of rambling to the point of being incoherent. He contradicted himself several times, it struck me. He said we’re gonna get out of nation building, but we are gonna create stability. Well, how do you do that? You get out of nation building in Afghanistan, you’ll get more instability. You got out of nation building in Iraq, you got more instability. He said the allies can rely on us, but we will be completely unpredictable. He said we will spend what it takes to rebuild the military, but we’re gonna pay down the debt. Uh, we’re gonna spread Western civilization, but we’re not gonna spread democracy. And he ended with a truly bizarre statement about the greatest problem in the world is that we have too many weapons, and, once again, a strange place where you might find that he and Bernie Sanders are one.

So, I thought that when he tried to flesh out an actual foreign policy, it was pretty incoherent. He was very strong on his protectionism, anti-trade, American unilateralism. He was very strong on attacking the Obama-Clinton legacy…really that’s mostly the Bush legacy when he talks about the trillions of dollars spent trying to nation build in the Middle East. That’s the Iraq war, that’s the Afghanistan war, both of which were initiated by President Bush. So, I don’t know that it’s gonna convince anyone, certainly it didn’t strike me as a careful, analytic laying out of a Trump foreign policy.

Others on CNN, including Mike Rogers, a former Republican congressman who was Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, joined Zakaria in his critical analysis, Rogers saying, “It was not exactly coherent.”

Who couldn’t have guessed that?

2 Comments

  1. So much there to pick from in the ravings of a lunatic yet one thing stands out to me that I haven’t heard much mention regarding. This is the idea that our allies are supposed to start paying us for their defense. I have seen analysts delve into history for precedent to provide some rationale for The Donald’s position. I submit they are looking in all the wrong places.
    Donald don’t know no stinking elitist history. He just knows about the Art of the Deal. And this is the kind of deal his old lawyer Roy Cohn used to negotiate for him with the Mob. It’s called protection money. Pay the man and nobody gets hurt, you don’t pay? “Well, Japan its sure a nice country you got here, be a real shame if something unfortunate was to happen to it if youse know what I mean.”

    Like

    • Protection racket? Yes. But, as in much of Trump’s demagogic rhetoric, there is a thread of common perception here. (I think he channels Archie Bunker.) The U.S. does spend more on “defense”, meaning armaments, than its allies do. In fact, NATO is doing poorly in meeting an agreed target of spending 2% of GDP on defense, with only four of 28 hitting the mark. But it’s naive to say the least to expect the laggards to just fork over money instead.

      The U.S. gained a heap of mojo in the 20th century, winning WW II, saving Europe with the Marshall Plan, reorganizing Japan, and winning the Cold War. We seem to be blowing it all now. First the disastrous second Iraq war and now bitter and childish demagoguery. The world is becoming increasingly unstable and the Syrian civil war is a prime symptom of it.

      Like

%d bloggers like this: