“every expert that I have and speak to says if we don’t go there, they’re going to be fighting over here. And I’ve heard it over and over again.”
I suppose its the same with Iraq. Its gone so well. Of course, an “expert” will say the government needs to continue doing the same thing. Such insight is what makes them experts!
It is appropriate that Donald Trump and Xi Jinping are flying to Buenos Aires for their showdown summit at the close of a month that began with the centennial of the end of the First World War. America’s economic tussles with China are all too reminiscent of the rivalry at the beginning of the last century between Britain, the superpower, and the rising power, Germany.
Learn from history to avoid repeating the same mistakes. Peace and prosperity is a wonderful thing and there’s no reason the leaders of China and the U.S. cannot forge a mutually beneficial relationship.
Seems the media enjoys exploiting the gaffes made by Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson.
But they buried or forgot the missteps made by Trump and Clinton.
I’ve dug them up. Here’s a reminder: Donald Trump’s ignorance about America’s Nuclear Triad? Or Hillary Clinton’s assertion that Libya represented American “smart power at its best.” These are policy questions, not gotcha questions that Johnson was asked. Or even George W. Bush’s inability to name the leaders of at-the-time four current world hot spots: Chechnya, Taiwan, India and Pakistan.
Here is Matt Welch on media hypocrisy on the issue:
I have no problem saying the Libertarian Party nominee screwed up in this or any other interview. But if there’s anything more obnoxious than cheerleaders for Donald “bomb-the-sh—out-of-ISIS” Trump mocking Johnson for foreign-policy ignorance, it’s supporters and enablers of Hillary Clinton rolling their eyes theatrically at a presidential candidate who was against the Iraq and Libyan wars in real time, who wants to pardon rather than imprison Edward Snowden, and who comports himself with occasionally awkward humility rather than with the polished and delusional omniscience that we’ve unfortunately come to demand in our presidential candidates.
So the media like the polished bull$hi% rather than substantive policy.
Here is Emma Ashford on contrasting their foreign policy:
A more restrained approach to foreign policy would see the United States involved in fewer unnecessary conflicts around the world, and a much stronger emphasis on diplomacy and other non-military solutions to global problems. In contrast to Clinton’s liberal interventionist approach, it would avoid getting bogged down in civil wars like Libya and Syria. In contrast to Trump’s curiously aggressive isolationism, a restrained foreign policy sees trade as a positive, security-enhancing factor.