At The American Conservative, foreign policy analyst, Daniel R. DePetris, explains the negative effects of unending wars in far away places, and the insanity of continuing them. He writes (abridged):
The byproducts of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Libya, and all the rest have often been weapons proliferation and terrorism rather than the freedom happy-talk neoconservatives and liberal internationalists hoped for.
Put aside his character flaws and deficiencies as a leader for a moment. Trump is at his best when he’s discussing the forever wars that have defined America’s foreign policy since the beginning of the century. On this, he is more in sync with the average American than he is with Beltway luminaries like Eliot Cohen, Bill Kristol, or Max Boot—all of whom continue to advocate for the very interventions that created so many problems in the first place.
Donald Trump could have used his State of the Union speech as an opportunity to deliver a warning to the foreign policy elite in both parties that the days of unlimited intervention are coming to a definite end. He failed to go that far tonight.
He did, however, offer up plenty of morsels for realists and restrainers. The United States is hungry for a foreign policy that is grounded in common sense and political leadership, that recognizes that staying in conflicts indefinitely—regardless of how high the cost—is the definition of insanity. They may finally have it.
Read more here.
Latest posts by Richard C. Young (see all)
- Trump Reelection? “Defeat is More Likely”: Agree or Disagree? - August 16, 2019
- TAC’s Robert W. Merry Unveils Presidential War Lies - August 16, 2019
- Trump’s Correct China Trade Strategy Requires Backbone, Resolve - August 16, 2019