Trump's foreign policy speech left experts puzzled or appalled

the fiscal times ^ | april 28 2016 | rob garver

[SteveH]

Donald Trump gave an amazing speech about his approach to US foreign policy on Wednesday, at least according to Donald Trump. At an event sponsored by the Center for the National Interest, the Republican presidential frontrunner delivered a 5,000-word speech touching on his criticisms of the Obama administration’s approach to national security, the need to whip US allies into shape, and promised that he alone can restore what he described as the lost standing of the US in world affairs.

A Trump foreign policy would eschew “nation building” but would still somehow promote stability worldwide. It would teach our allies to trust us again, even while making a point of behaving “unpredictably.” It would teach the US military to “fight to win,” as opposed to...whatever it is he thinks the military does now.

[Tailback]

Best speech in my opinion was “The Boys of Point du Hoc”.

[Bob434]

[[Apparently, cognoscenti consensus is good enough for you....]]

No- being free to say what i want, go where i please for the most part, own guns, eat three meals a day, shower regularly, enjoy an abundance of material goods compared to many many other nations, and being safe from terror attacks for many decades now (with the exception of the surprise attack on 9/11 and the terror attacks under the current failed administration) are good enough for me-

[Scrambler Bob]

I’d love to know what the author thinks the military does now.
= = =

ROEs

Can’t shoot bad guys.

Can’t stop an “ally” officer from raping little boys.

Get approval before dropping a bomb (from the WH or from a JAG).

[meadsjn]

The centrist group Third Way wrote, “Donald Trump lacks a meaningful understanding of US foreign policy.” His speech Wednesday “showed just how incoherent and inconsistent his views are on national security issues” and revealed that Trump is “out of his depth.”

Centrist? Third Way is a bunch of globalist, communist, totalitarian, pro-muslim, genocidal maniacs, hell-bent on elevating a handful of self-anointed elitists above the world's humans, and subjugating the world's humans like caged animals.

[libstripper]

The snarkiness of this libtard article, being the same as the snarkiness of articles written by similar people about Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy, says all I need to know about The Donald’s: IT WILL BE A WINNER.

[ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton]

I can’t believe how badly people are interpreting this.

Obviously what he was taking about IS NOT LETTING OUR ENEMIES KNOW WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO.

I think you have to really be against Trump not to see that speech as excellent.

[rarestia]

The idea rings very positively with Millenials. Search social media anywhere around the globe, and we’re seen as unnecessary nation builders. We “meddle” in others affairs. I have to agree with Trump. We need to get out of the business of others and act in an advisory role. We’ve spilled enough blood and spent enough money over the last 100 years.

[MrB]

The unpredictability should make our enemies think
“if we do this, will our country be a parking lot tomorrow or not?”

[Rustybucket]

Our warfighters complain that politics and the UCMJ prevent them from aggressively winning conflicts. Trump espouses taking the gloves off and fighting at or above the level of our adversaries. If they fight dirty, we fight dirty. IMO.

[meadsjn]

no no- the experts on FR are much more believable than actual policy experts who’s job is to actually make policies that keep us safe around the world— After all, it’s not what the experts think- it’s what people who don’t understand policy think that matters-

Thank you, Bob434. You're catching on. Yes, our FR experts are much more believable. And the voters agree.

[MrB]

“reading the instruction page for an Ikea table kit”

Ha! Very funny! There are no words, just pictures.

[RipSawyer]

“Amazing how a speech full of common sense solutions can so confound the “experts”.”

I had it right years and years ago when I started to believe that we have reached the point where the country is being run by those who would have been locked in insane asylums when I was a small boy and anyone who says what used to be recognized as truth as incontrovertible as the Sunrise is looked on as an idiot. The fact is that, even though I have had severe misgivings about Trump, a huge percentage of what he says is simply that which no one questioned sixty years ago. I am afraid to believe it but maybe the pendulum is beginning to swing the other way. Regardless of what one may think of Trump it is clear that only the walking brain dead think the other major party has anything to offer in this election.

[papertyger]

No- being free to... "baaaaaa" is certainly your right.

It just doesn't work too well with the whole "supercilious" thing.

[angcat]

LOL “experts”

[RipSawyer]

Someone said long ago that an ex is a has been and a spurt is a drip under pressure.

[moehoward]

LOL!!! “Experts” include Thirdway “We are moderates, and if you are too, you are not alone”.

[SteveH]

LOL!!!

:-)

[pieceofthepuzzle]

Same!

[thoughtomator]

“Third Way” = Clinton, for those who didn’t know the reference.

[SteveH]

i don’t have any big problem but it is small contradictions in everyone’s everyday speech that tend to make me stick to the big themes and let the smaller details sort themselves out. i know this carries with it a certain amount of downside risk but it is also hard to avoid that no matter what one does. just my opinion. :-)