Equally risky at this time and for the same reasons are our commitments in Eastern Europe. Are we really ready, much less able, to defend Estonia? What are our commitments to Ukraine? What does Russia understand our commitment to be? Finally, does this administration know what its commitment is?
It is one thing to consider America's vital national interests are tied up with Great Britain and northern European nations like Germany and quite another to permit nations like the Philippines or Vietnam to commit us to war. One thinks of the unraveling of diplomacy in 1914 leading each country in turn into a conflict which was to destroy the world order forever.
It seems we're facing three enemies at least (ignore Cuba for the moment): Russia, China, Islam. The mere fact that we are facing three enemies, two with nuclear weapons and one with 1.6 billion adherents, means that we are vulnerable to the facing two of these enemies at once and that in turn implies that our resources are inadequate so we must have allies. But it does not do to have allies who are more liability than asset. One is reminded of Napoleons reply when asked what sort of enemy he would like to fight, "allies." Clearly Trump is onto something when he signals that the age of America paying any price, bearing any burden, meeting any hardship, supporting any friend, opposing any foe alone is drawing to a close simply because we are broke. Our allies rank as the third, fourth and fifth economies of the world yet they have somehow maneuvered us into bearing the burden almost exclusively.
In this atmosphere we have to decide whether we have allies or something closer to the Austro-Hungarian Empire proving a liability to Wilhelmina Germany. It was not for nothing that Ludendorff noted, "we are shackled to a corpse." What I'm trying to say is that we need our allies but they also need us and, like trade deals, the age of rolling over to every demand has passed.
The war on terror is a different matter altogether because this enemy can either be appeased, intimidated, or reasoned with. The truth is we simply do not know how successfully to wage war against jihad. It seems to me the first step, even before we decide who can be an ally and how they can contribute, is to consolidate an agreement on proper policy domestically. The argument over failure to call militant Islam by its name is really about motivating the country to wage war against militant Islam. We are not psychologically ready to do so and that must be changed. It cannot be changed so long as our president, whether Obama or Hillary, is ambivalent about waging and winning such a war. This administration is utterly cynical, it knows that if it identifies any portion of Islam as an enemy it's stratagem to "transform" America with immigration simply will not be tolerated.
Our mistreatment of Israel is not a one-off problem rather it is simply symptomatic of an incoherent, perhaps traitorous foreign policy rooted in the belief that America is not worthy of preserving. Trump is right, we must make America great again, and then we can attract allies, cause them to fairly contribute to mutual security, and intimidate enemies. The starting point is at home.
