I wasn't referring to his supposed negotiaton with the Taliban, but rather to his overall foreign relations view. I don't believe his foreign relations policy was an empty campaign promise, if that's what you are implying; but rather a sincere position. I don't believe he relishes the idea of a war at all. But I do think having faith in negotiations may be misplaced with the Taliban, if in fact it was a real offer and not a stratgic feint, at which he is a past master.
” I don’t believe his foreign relations policy was an empty campaign promise, if that’s what you are implying”
That - his general foreign relations policy - is not what I am referring to.
I was specifically referring to Afghanistan and the Taliban.
I was suggesting the opposite of an “empty” campaign promise, with regard to Afghanistan and the Taliban, and further having a concern that he might keep the campaign pledge - to pull the troops out of Afghanistan - on a deal, any deal with the Taliban, just to, politically, keep that pledge, bad deal or not.
Yes, I think presidents of both parties get infected with a virus, a virus that puts their reach for a legacy, usually a “diplomatic” legacy as of greater priority than whether not the diplomatic deal is in our long term interest. I think that virus is bipartisan. Yes, it has “good intentions” but it also has personal ambition, and presidents are human, not saints.