Republicans actually think that Trump has a world view like themselves. They really are not able to see that he has a superficial understanding of the world and of people who have strong feelings and opinions about how to meet the challenges that we face. He hired Bolton after seeing him on Fox News, many times. If he understood much of anything, he had to have known what to expect from Bolton.
4
The necessity of a strong military presence to ensure our security doesn't equate with Bolton's advocacy for regime change in Iran and other countries. It was Bolton who helped morph the Iraqi excursion from it;s mission to ensure compliance with un mandates regarding wmd's to one of regime change. Bolton doesnt know when to stop. I am disappointed that Romney didnt distinguish between the two prospective s in his misguided praise of Bolton.
4
One horrible human being hires another horrible human being. What could go wrong?
12
Bolton was a hawk with a 1950s philosophy about world affairs. Shoot ‘em, nuke ‘em, replace their regime. That’s all he brought to the barren table of Trump foreign policy.
If ever there was a lost-in-time person to be appointed National Security advisor to a lost-in-time administration, he was it. It seemed he would fit right in.
We must raise a glass, however, to his last act. By whatever means, he kept Trump from hosting the Taliban at Camp David. That may be his signature accomplishment.
3
There's an anti-interventionist group in the GOP? Who knew? Kind of like the protectionist group - non-existent.
3
Unless Trump is schizophrenic, there is no divide. Trump is the Republican Party and what he says goes. Who has challenged him or is going to challenge him? These sycophants have been criminally mum, for the most part.
7
There is a movement forming to award Trump the Nobel peace prize for canning John Bolton. It is surely his most notable foreign policy achievement to date.
5
I don't know if it has occurred to you lately, but America is in big trouble.
7
Who will Trump choose as his next NSA? Just watch Fox News. Odds are, it will be one of the far right wing commentators currently rambling on that propaganda network. That is how Trump picked Bolton in the first place.
5
The opposing voices on the subject of John Bolton is not simply a "GOP Divide". To be more precise, it is a divide between those who believe Americas interests always coincide with Israels and those who dont. Romney is famous for discounting the interests of half the county ("I dont care about those 50%) and boasting about his close friendship with Nut and Yahoo. He , and many other Republican "Neo Cons" frequently deny any "light" between Israel and Americas interests. Bolton was opposed to peace agreement with N Korea because of the alleged nuclear connection between N.K and Iran (Tablet: Jay Solomon "Whenever nuclear weapons technology appears in the hand s of Israels enemies, Pyongyang is usually involved"). Until we are honest about how completely some of our politicians are motivated by financial support from those who push Israels interests over America (even NY Times recognized Adelson of Las Vegas as one of these influencers) we can not have an honest debate as to which of our enemies we should or shouldnt talk to . Bolton did not speak for the best interests of America. For the sake of world peace, thank God that Bolton got the boot!
8
Adelson and Bibi must have had mild strokes when their designated hawk supposedly at Trump's ear was kicked out. Apparently, Trump's fealty to Putin outweighs that to the Israel Lobby. Putin wants Trump to win again, so Russia can have four more years of destroying us on all fronts. The Israel Lobby doesn't care what the fallout for Trump and Putin would be. They just want their regime-change proxy war for Israel to "protect" it from Iran. Glad Bannon, or someone, got to Trump to remind him that such a war would be political suicide.
7
Our President is a man who has called talks a done deal and who was walked away from an actual signed done deal. What country would ever agree to anything with this President, I know no rational thinking person would. And. That is where we are my fellow Americans.
8
It is giving far too much credit to President Trump and the Republicans to characterize this as a principled policy difference.
First of all, the President neither has nor has had any policies (other than self-serving image enhancement.) He has largely spur-of-the-moment tweets and actions, which not infrequently totally contradict what he has done the day before. (See his comments regarding Kim Jong-un as a prime example.)
Second, there is functionally no national Republican Party, merely, a craven bunch of cowardly Trump toadies who, unlike many Conservatives in Great Britain vis a vis Boris Johnson, stand for nothing other than the booty they will reap from reelection.
In any case, within an Administration you can't have a principled discussion without knowledgeable and independent participants. The most important characteristic a President must have is his (or her) ability to evaluate and select people who will be charged with responsibility within the Administration. No President can can be well-informed about every relevant issue. Therefore it is critically important that a President choose reliably knowledgeable people to provide information and execute policy. Given the very high rate of turnover in Trump's Administration, both voluntary and forced, it is clear that President Trump lacks the ability to evaluate, choose, and retain the people who are absolutely necessary for the safety and well-ordered functioning of our country.
6
In foreign policy Trump is all bluff and no bite, leading to US loss of credibility and reflecting the President's ignorance and incompetence. But his Republican neo-con opponents are all bite and no diplomacy, conducing to either stalemated disputes or no-win wars not worth the expenditure of resources.
The real seat of pragmatic foreign policy no longer rests (as it once did) with the Republican Establishment (or populists), but with the moderate (underscore "moderate") wing of the Democratic Party.
2
The only thing that is certain from ANY move by this "Commander in Chief" is that all decisions are made not by whether it is for the benefit of the nation, but for the same Commander in Chief.
4
It is giving far too much credit to President Trump and the Republicans to characterize this as a principled policy difference.
First of all, the President neither has nor has had any consistent policies (other than self-serving image enhancement.) He has largely spur-of-the-moment tweets and actions, which not infrequently totally contradict what he has done the day before. (See his comments regarding Kim Jong-un as a prime example.)
Second, there is functionally no national Republican Party, merely, a craven bunch of cowardly Trump toadies who, unlike many Conservatives in Great Britain vis a vis Boris Johnson, stand for nothing other than the booty they will reap from reelection.
In any case, within an Administration you can't have a principled discussion without knowledgeable and independent participants, currently an anachronism. The most important characteristic a President must have is his (or her) ability to evaluate and select people who will be charged with responsibility within the Administration. No President can can be well-informed about every relevant issue. Therefore it is critically important that a President choose reliably knowledgeable people to provide information and execute policy. Given the very high rate of turnover in Trump's Administration, both voluntary and forced, it is clear that President Trump lacks the ability to evaluate, choose, and retain the people who are absolutely necessary for the safety and well-ordered functioning of our country.
2
Listening to Congressional testimony of various Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff over the years, they have always painted a can-do picture of military progress.
Yet after all of these years the Taliban appear to be able place bombs anywhere in Afghanistan, from Kabul to Bamyan Province to the highlands.
18 years after World War 2 both Germany and Japan were vibrant democracies with strong economies. 18 years since 9/11 and Afghanistan is still a basket case.
Absent remaining there indefinitely the more realistic outcome for the US, and the rest of the West, is an Afghanistan with a strong Taliban leadership, whose one concession must be to prevent terror attacks on the West, upon threat of heavy aerial bombing.
Other than that they will probably be as repressive against their own population, such as instituting severe forms Sharia law and minimal schooling for females, as one might expect from them.
2
Ms. Edmonson's article frames this debate as if it were purely an American debate, but it's not. Behind this debate moves the unseen shadow of the Zionist movement. The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Iran are all wars for the protection of Israel's eastern flank. Therefore, the Zionist movement is deeply invested in the outcome of this debate. Just as in 1936, they cannot allow isolationism to prevail. From their point of view, America has to remain engaged in the Near East. Has to. For them it's an existential question. With Mr. Bolton gone, we'll see what forces they can mobilize to maintain US engagement in that region.
2
...and if Trump's foreign policy acumen mirrors his weather forecasting ability, what then?
2
The abrupt ouster of John Bolton confirmed the GOP members of the Congress are divided about key military and security issues. The majority of the Republicans don't want a military withdrawal from Afghanistan in the current moment because they don't trust in the Taliban.
1
There may well be a divide in the Republican party over policy. But the ouster of Bolton represents nothing more than the need by Trump for sycophants, and his intolerance for those who won't perform that role.
2
OK, now that Moscow Mitch and the Romster et al have all gone woo-woo over his sketchy foreign policies, it's time to pipe down and let Trump concentrate on the weather forecasts.
1
I enjoy watching his Republican allies struggle over Mr. Trump’s “foreign policy.” His only policy is to show how superior he is to all other presidents. He wanted a big show at Camp David and when the two sides would not play along, he seized upon another tragic American death as an excuse to throw away months of diplomatic work. This way, he at least looks like a tough guy to the crowd who goes to his rallies.
2
on 9/11 anniversary, the lesson remains the same - enlightened engagement informed by history, not by ideologues. never forget.
2
I am absolutely certain that if Trump had to fill in a map of countries in the Middle East, he would fail the test. Does anyone seriously believe Trump has crafted a cogent, logical, well-informed foreign policy? I would love for someone to administer a Global Regents Exam to 45. I guarantee he would be asked to attend summer school.
This is a man who went nuts because Dorian didn’t hit Alabama as he forecasted and ordered NOAA to say they were wrong. Do you honestly believe he understands the complexities of foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East?
Now Miller and Mnuchin are in charge. The inmates are running the asylum and the GOP has remade itself in Trump’s image.
I can not imagine why anyone would want to take Bolton’s place to become another whipping boy for 45. I almost feel sorry for him or her, but mostly I feel sorry for the rational among us.
6
Forever wars are good for business. We are the world's number one producer of weapons. What would happen to our multi-billion dollar weapons companies with no war? Boeing charges us 1.4 million dollars per cruise missile and would be hard hit with no market. The U.S. economy thrives on forever wars.
3
The wars in the middle east over the past 30 years have taken their toll on American lives, treasury and patience. It is clear the neocon wing of the GOP now is fighting on two fronts; the Democrats and members of their own party. What the neocons and the non-neocons of the GOP do not seem to have a problem with is Trump's decimation of our diplomatic core and State Department functions.
Whether the GOP stands for a more-forward use of military force or a more isolationist stance when it comes to the use of our military; what is singularly the most dangerous thing to have happened to the GOP is that nobody in that party seems to care in the least about the intentional disintegration of our State Department by Trump. That is both scary and unforgivable.
2
I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware that the GOP *had* a foreign policy. For that matter, I didn’t realize that they had *any* policy. Still waiting for the bigger, better, and cheaper healthcare...
1
What foreign policy?
Meanwhile, the missiles fly. Hackers hack. Elections "Are Rigged".
The Republican Ship has stalled in high seas. All the while, the US is no longer the leader of the "free" world. Instead, Trump treads water in circles only to be a victim of his own lack of morals and vision guided only by wasteful attacks on Twitter. Let the high seas take them all as they forgot their life rafts as the leaking ship sailed while playing follow the leader into the whirlpool.
2
I praise Rand Paul for questioning the mission and its purpose.
I can't help but wonder that myself.
Also, a disagreement, or "divide" as it is being called, between members of a party is essentially a healthy thing. Total compliance is not.
9
@Tenkan
You praise Rand Paul?
2
What have the last 18 years taught us about US military power abroad?
We did not get Bin Laden for 10 years. And he was found by intelligence and tracking, cover operations.
We went into Iraq to find non-existent weapons of mass destruction. How many died?
So what good do soldiers do in this age?
23
@Grain Boy - You make a good point but it's important to remember that there are soldiers working in intelligence gathering etc.
1
What are all of these people talking about? Trying to parse The Donald's stand on various aspects of foreign and defense policy.
The Donald cares about one thing -- himself. He loves being President because he is the center of attention 24/7 even when he is talking nonsense. And he wants to be reelected. That is all you need to know about his stands on economic, defense, diplomatic -- in fact any kind of policy. The object of everything is to have a photo-op where The Donald can be the center of attention and to pander to the trump faithful.
That is what brought us the flap over the weather forecast -- The Donald could not resist getting on television talking about the hurricane and posing as a weather expert even when he did not know what he was talking about. It probably never occurred to him that he would frighten a lot of people in Alabama who would then call NOAA.
The meeting at Camp David with the Taliban was a chance for him to pose as the great deal maker and get a photo-op. I doubt that he knows or cares whether it was a good deal or a bad deal or what happens to Afghanistan after we leave.
Welcome to the Apprentice Presidency.
31
I hope that the US keeps protecting democracy and freedom around the globe and that people like John Bolton receive the respect and honour they deserve.
If the US gives up its role as world policeman, other forces (China, Russia,Saudi Arabia, Iran) will fill the vacuum.
And we all know that these countries do not have a parliament, a supreme court, or even basic human rights.
4
@Nick - The U.S. thinks nothing of grabbing a person off of the street, locking them up in Gitmo doing god knows what, and then after 17 years give them a trial. China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran have got nothing on the U.S.
1
There is indeed a divide in the Republican party between hawks and, at least since Trump, doves on the issue of regime change wars. As opposed to the Democrats, where the only acceptable position if you want their nomination for President is war with Russia.
6
@Edwin
What? Democratic candidates blame Russia for their ongoing attempts to manipulate and interfere in our internal politics, and for their adventurism in the Ukraine, takeover in Crimea, and threats to the Baltic States...in other words, they are adversaries of our national interests and global stability. "War" with Russia in a Democratic administration would be of the Cold variety, as it should be at this very moment and would be if the President were not oddly indisposed to taking the Russian threat seriously.
1
@Edwin
Your statement indicates how far away Republicans have moved from recognizing that Russia has long been our enemy, trying to undermine our government and our interests abroad.
It used to be the Republicans who were continually pointing out the threat posed by Russia, especially their communist form of totalitarian government.
Now, Republicans, are calling Democrats, who are alarmed at the lack of concern over Russian cyberwarfare against us, "socialists" and "communists", apparently deciding it's politically expedient, rather than truthful.
Attacking fellow Americans with spurious accusations, while ignoring the very real threat from Russia, is extremely dangerous for this country, and emboldens our enemies.
3
Thank God there's a divide in the Republican party. If they all started thinking one way we really would be in trouble.
6
Yes, free thinking is allowed in the GOP, unlike the Democrat Party. Main reason I walked away years ago.
Everyone knew who Bolton was. Even Donald.
Donald hires people not for advice, but for effect. He wanted to look tough while he gave away the store to Putin and Kim.
18
Put any ten politicians of any one party together and you will see a divide.
5
Hopefully, another Bolton will not come along to try to gain politically from misfortunes, created by the U.S. State Department, in concert with the CIA, thrust upon already unfortunate people in the name of "National Security". The President was right to ask how many Iranian deaths would result from a military response to the downing of a U.S. drone; what wasn't right was for him to be told of a number which was, in reality, thousands of times less than what is implied by the whole stinking mess. If political laurels are contingent upon war alone, then something is also wrong with how power is construed to be of the utmost importance. It was high time for Bolton to be removed from the setting of policy making decisions: he was (is) a war monger. It does seem futile to try to separate political action from economics; ergo the harm which the U.S. does to the above mentioned unfortunates with its sanctions should also be reviewed, and perhaps the departure of Mnuchin should serve as an instance of emulative behavior, if the President and his handlers truly desire peace, which is somewhat doubtful.
5
Bolton is out but he has managed to scuttle the talks with the Taliban. We invaded Afghanistan 18 years ago and have nothing to show for it but the lost lives of American soldiers and countless Afghan civilians. The government we prop up is despised by its own people and would topple the instant we pulled out. Do we plan to maintain a permanent garrison there? Our forces serve no further purpose and are only flashpoints for anti-American resentment.
The foreign policies of both Republican and Democratic administrations have made a complete hash of the Middle East and weakened rather than strengthened our strategic position there. We've never had a fully articulated idea of our "interests" in the region beyond short term PR prattle to sell whatever scheme we happen to be keen on at the time and that has led to disaster, Afghanistan being the least of it. Saddam Hussein (once "our" guy) was a monster, but his Iraq served as a needed counterweight to Iranian ambitions -- thanks to us, that is now gone and what is left of Iraq is compliantly in Iran's orbit. Libya is a humanitarian and geopolitical disaster following our intervention there. We still have boots on the ground in Syria even though Assad remains in power in close alliance with Russia. Why? Trump's rash withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal may yet lead to war and more unintended consequences.
We need to thoroughly reassess what our strategic interests actually are and understand the limits of our power.
28
@Boris Jones
This is not true.
Afghanistan today is a freer, more democratic, and more prosperous country than in 2001, even if it's still a long way to go.
5
Words can be odd human creations at times in addition to their inherent flaw that they can never adequately represent whatever they were created to mean. To describe. To answer. To question. To delineate. To obscure. For example, Mitch McConnell’s: “ He knows that there are many threats to American interests and that those threats will not recede if we retreat.” The article attributes his focus to be on Bolton, whose various behaviors over the years have been a threat to American interests! As have Trump’s harmful daily words and deeds! As have the words and deeds of ranges of personally unaccountable American policymakers, at all levels, selected and elected. All over locally, regionally and nationally. Urban. Rural and in between. If all genders. Ranges of characteristics.Levels of education. Work experience. Religiosity; those who prayed and those who chose to prey.
And amidst a toxic WE-THEY violating culture all too many of US, complacently and by complicity enabled threats and their outcomes!
2
Probably the only thing I agree with Trump on is ending this perpetual war mentality with Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, [insert whatever other country we are meddling in here]. Bolton is an egregious war monger who would have nuked at least a couple countries by now were he in charge, so good riddance. He can go back to the talk show circuit with his continual drum beat for military actions. If Trump can finally break Republican obsession with projecting military power wherever and whenever we please, I will give him credit. We are fighting wars with no identifiable end-game, and many Republicans are just itching to start yet another. The "war on terror" is an abject failure - what American truly feels safer 18 years after 9/11 and trillions of dollars spent on it? I feel less secure now than I did on Sept. 12, 2001, and it's not fear of Islamic terrorists. It's fear of the next gun (or bomb)-toting American white supremacist that I'm worried about.
19
We have had troops in Europe for 74 years and in Korea for 69 years, why is that not important when we have been in Afghanistan for only 18 years. Remember Obama arbitrarily pulled out in 2011 according to Bush’s plan and look where that got us. Besides it beats Ranger or Seal school for irregular warfare training.
1
@Richard
Good point Richard. My response is that our troops in Europe and South Korea are/were welcomed by those allies and their citizens over the decades. I'd argue that Afghanistan is quite a different situation - we invaded the country, turned it upside down, and left tens of thousands of troops there who are still being killed 18 years later. It is arguable whether the citizens of Afghanistan want us there, the Taliban obviously doesn't, and the corrupt Afghan government just wants our troops to protect their tenuous grip on power. Also, don't South Korea and our European allies cover some of the costs of having our troops on their soil? Perhaps if the Afghans paid the bill for all this, I'd change my mind.
2
As several pundits have observed recently, it hardly matters who President Trump appoints or "acting-appoints" to replace John Bolton as the nation's NSA. The president listens only to his gut and his gut is informed by whatever spin-cycles around in that washer-dryer combo that passes for his corporal frame.
In considering Afghanistan, Rush Limbaugh is his usual cogent source of even-keeled counsel. He called for the firing of whoever had the idea of inviting the Taliban to Camp David. This is a thinly-veiled demand for President Trump to be impeached, since the ill-fated idea was his and his alone. Perhaps Mike Pompeo gushed "Ses, SIR!" I'm quite sure that Limbaugh knows this.
9
@John lebaron
I love your phrasing, Mr. Lebaron. Most eloquent.
1
When John Bolton was appointed as the National Security Adviser, Baltimore Sun wrote, “Mr. Bolton is the old fire-breathing warmonger who helped push President George W. Bush to invade Iraq 15 years ago on the false grounds that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction poised to attack America and her allies.” And, it quoted the tweet of Democratic Sen. Edward Markey of the progressive state of Massachusetts: "Bolton played a key role in politicizing the intel that misled us into the Iraq War. We cannot let this extreme war hawk blunder us into another terrible conflict."
Even some Republican Senators were less than thrilled.
On April 13, 2005, the NYT about the nomination of Bolton as US Ambassador to the United Nations in less than glowing terms. The article also contained a reference to the Democrat’s darling presidential candidate: “Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the panel's ranking Democrat, said Mr. Bolton's record would undercut any American attempt to warn the United Nations of Iran's or North Korea's suspected weapons programs.
"This is a big deal, guys and ladies," Mr. Biden said. "I believe that this appointment is damaging to our national interests."
Therefore, the left-wingers must stand up and cheer President Trump for safekeeping “our national interests” by firing the person who was “damaging” them.
7
@Appu Nair But he's the guy who appointed Bolton. It's not like Bolton changed his stripes.
It'a a lot like North Korea where Trump was threatening to attack them and making it much more likely we'd have a war there and then he wanted credit for backing off on his own rhetoric.
Are you always this easy to con?
13
@Appu Nair "left-wingers must stand up and cheer president trump for safekeeping our national interests....?" Trump appointed the war monger and tump endangered the entire world by doing so. We must be relieved that trump's ego bristled enough at Bolton's unaccommodating arrogant persona to finally fire him -- but cheer?
1
As I understand it, Trump believes we should extract ourselves from multiple overseas conflicts and that we should reduce our role as the "world's police force".
I am having a difficult time reconciling that thinking with the fact that Trump's budgets have increased military spending (non-VA) by over $150 Billion annually ( $1.5 Trillion over 10 years as the swamp folks say). Even more confusing is the fact that he is asking for an increase of over $100 Billion in 2020 in the Overseas Contingency Operations fund which exists solely to fund conflicts outside of the homeland.
In other words, he is substantially increasing spending for what is already by far the largest U.S. government agency (DOD) in the swamp, while at the same time he is trying to reduce their role. There must be some other reason why he is pushing through such massive budget increases. Wonder what it is?
12
@JS Perhaps it is to provide more money for Trump to shift over to his beloved border wall, which he continues to support in spite of its likely failure to do what he claims it will do. Bolton's departure is yet another sign of the chaos in the Trump Administration. Many of our allies are alarmed by the erratic changes in almost everything about the Trump Administration, except for his lying, which is consistent but not reassuring.
8
The answer is simple. The US defense department does not make decisions based on making US more secure. The main goal is to enrich the defense industry. The "Military - Industrial complex" as described by President Eisenhower. Ike was no pansy. Ike was no fringe "conspiracy theorist". He recognized how greed had infected his Department of Defense and he warned us about it. It is bad enough that the tax payer is being ripped off and Trump has a role in that. At the very least, dont kill anymore innocent American boys and girls for wars that are not in the interest of U.S. That concept, Trump gets.
2
@JS
Ever heard of Russia and China?
The ideal endgame in Afghanistan is the same as it was in Iraq: a competent, democratically-based government that can fend for itself, allowing the U.S. to withdraw its forces.
In Iraq, after many setbacks, there has been a reasonable degree of success. At least the Iraqis elect their leaders now, and are on their own dime. But after 18 years of war in Afghanistan, there's not much to encourage us. The Afghan government is democratic, but it's hobbled by corruption and incompetence, it has no independent financial basis, and it plainly would have fallen long ago if not for U.S. support. Maybe a functioning nation-state was too much to ask of a disparate people largely still at a tribal stage, who have not yet developed a sense of nationhood, and who lack the experience and expertise to govern themselves. Religion may be a more effective uniter for them than nationhood. I'm no fan of Trump, but I think he's right that there is no end in sight in Afghanistan. We should withdraw, with the understanding that we will attack again if the Taliban allows another Al-Queda on their soil.
5
Trump knew all about Bolton when he hired him and knew he was a hawk and how he stood on the issues. The Wall Street Journal has a front-page article today that pretty much blames Bolton for just about all of Trump’s international negotiation failues. What a hoot! They are suggesting now that Bolton is gone all will be well. I’m certainly not a fan of Bolton but it’s a tough sell to attempt to blame Bolton for Trump’s failures. That’s a cross that only Trump can bear himself.
23
@Wally Wolf
Exactly. Another well-considered hire by the stable genius.
10
I am waiting for someone to explain to me what the US gained by intervening in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria -- beyond increasing the profits of the war merchants that is.
Trump is undoubtedly the worst President in our history. The one thing that he may have partially right is phased withdrawal from this failed world policeman role.
8
@Penseur We didn't intervene much in Syria unless you believe we instigated the uprising against Assad but I've seen no good evidence to support that claim.
Vietnam & Iraq were both utter disasters, especially in a moral sense but also in a practical sense.
We did manage to free most of Afghanistan from the Taliban but now the Taliban are creeping back.
Our absurdly bloated defense budget is definitely attributable to the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex.
The attack on Iraq and the threats against Iran can be explained by the fact that folks named Trump and Bush aren't making any money in Iran and didn't make any money in Iraq under Saddam.
Please note that right now Trump is waging economic war against Iran. They're not gonna fold so the chances of it becoming a military war are quite high.
You're not expecting Trump to be consistent, are you?
1
If ever we needed additional proof that on foreign policy there is not much to choose between Republican moderates like Romney and hawks like Bolton (not the mention virtually the entirety of the warrior Democratic Party, with the honourable exceptions of Tulsi and Bernie), here we have it again. Trump rarely appears to be the voice of reason, but this is one such occasion, and you can be sure that neither the NYT, nor any of the liberal media, will acknowledge it. Getting out of Afghanistan, and the Middle East altogether, is long overdue and the only means to end the quagmire of these endless wars. Moreover, the assertion that U.S. withdrawal would lead to catastrophe in the region is far from certain. The opposite may well be the case.
7
@ngop
Like everyone before him, only more so, Trump is willing to pull out of the Middle East without an exit plan. Isis is already on the rise as is the influence of the other extremist groups that continue to pose a threat to our Nation. Trump's intention is to fulfill a campaign promise with the hope of being reelected. He has no discernible ideology or morality. He only goes where the money is.
If there is a way for him to make money by removing our troops from the middle east, you can bet your bottom dollar he will find a way,
probably through Saudi Arabia.
4
@ngop
"It could be one way, it could be the other! Who knows! Up could be down! So let's just do things the Republican way which isn't based on anything in reality."
3
@Larry We've spent 4 trillion dollars on Middle East adventures since 2001. Isis will always be "on the rise" if we don't recognize the failure of our foreign policy in this region.
3
Let's not base our withdrawal from Afghanistan on a political timetable. Let's just withdraw all troops immediately, and never mind any deals. Congratulations on firing Bolton, President Trump! All peace-loving people, whatever their political affiliation, should celebrate.
6
There are three pillars to maintaining influence on the world stage.
1. An effective State Department staffed by career professionals who are skilled and experienced in dealing with the nations of the world.
2. A strong, well trained and equipped modern military.
3. Leadership that is intelligent, patient, knowledgeable and capable of dealing with allies and adversaries.
Trump has effectively destroyed each pillar.
Our State Department is a joke. Trump has taken the role of diplomat and deals directly with other nations, often with disastrous results due to his ineptitude and lack of diplomatic training.
Now that he has made his intentions clear where the money for his Wall is coming from, he will weaken our military. Since he has said since his campaign that he knows more than the generals, he has made some bewildering decisions that has his generals scratching their heads.
As for leadership, Trump has proven that he is the most unqualified person ever to sit in the Oval Office. He has alienated our allies and is best buds with our enemies.
Bolton was an aberration in the Trump administration. He may have been too eager to go in with guns blazing, but at least he understood the importance of the United States position at the top of the totem pole. Trump only cares about Trump, his reelection and how much government money he can shovel into his bank accounts.
If the Republicans fail to appreciate the danger of Donald Trump, they do so at their own risk.
39
@Larry
Everything you stated is correct. The GOP I am completely convinced have no intention of doing anything. I dont even understand why they are in political positions. They know nothing and do nothing.
Mr. Romney is just mouthing empty words. As long as it is someone else's child who goes off to fight they could all care less. Moscow mitch is an embarrassment to the country and himself.
16
Not sorry to see the last of John Bolton. I would classify him as a chickenhawk — someone who advocates for wars and interventions even though he did everything he could to avoid active service in the military. Why should the country trust or take advice from someone like that.
There are others of the same ilk I’m afraid — George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney and their cheerleaders Rush Limbaugh, Bill Kristol and Bill O’Reilly come to mind.
Those who have active service experience like the Congressman Waltz mentioned in the article are more credible.
28
Traditionally a horrible appointment like Bolton is followed by something even worse. Just wait til you see who's next. Dana Rohrabacher or Alex Jones maybe? Duncan Hunter?
As the deplorables battle amongst them selves like scorpions in a bucket, we the bucket, have a hole and are sinking.
14
What foreign policy, this govt both party never had one, they swing from branch to branch without clue
3
How could a war hawk be a loss to our country? The complicit mastermind of the Iraq war?
Romney what happened to you? Or is this really what you stand for? The party of ill begotten wars as long as their children don’t have to fight them
16
The president is a bully without fortitude. The GOP is all about projecting American military power around the world, a doctrine that has always been a powerful consensus in their party. He is now the sign of the American chicken in his party’s eyes. This will now turn many in the party against him. He is not reliably able to address conflicts that actually deserve a hard response. A wolf in sheep’s clothing.
6
Bolton was an outlier amongst national security professionals. His views were in line with 18th century military and diplomatic standards but sadly misguided in the twentieth century and stupid in the twenty first. Trump was a fool to have appointed him at all given his reluctance to go to war over very little. But Bolton deserved better treatment, not to be terminated by tweet, nor to be seen to have been fired. He did noting different than he ever promised.
5
trump has no policy regarding anything except, is it good for donald trump. He will be dovish when it's good for him and he will be hawkish when it's good for him. He has no guiding principles.
55
"it’s certainly essential that Afghanistan not be allowed to return as a base for terrorist activity,” said Mr. Romney."
Republicans, including Romney, do not care that we have had 313 people killed by mass shootings in the US in 2019. The terrorists to be worrying about are the ones killing our children and others in schools, churches, Walmarts, movie theaters, malls, etc due to no gun control in the US. According to the CDC there were 39,773 gun deaths in 2017. It is a national emergency.
89
@Jacquie
How is stopping mass shootings of our children and others in schools, churches, malls and movie theaters going to put money in the pockets of republicans compared to caving in to the NRA demands? That’s the question that needs to be asked.
9
@Wally Wolf Yes. Also the question that needs to be asked is do we care about our future which is our children and grandchildren.
6
@Jacquie The obvious republican position on that is a resounding "NO, we do NOT care."
3
The twentieth century gave proof that military power and excellent intelligence and very astute diplomacy and a U.S. government that relied upon reason to make them work all were necessary for peace and stability. Trump has no head for any of it and Republicans are refusing to make him wise up. So the Republicans have become the party of dumb foreign policy.
42
If you're still in the GOP after all you've held your nose and supported, after all your leadership has done to trample our democracy, ask yourself, what in the world could possibly be left that would have the power to divide you?
All the goofy grandstanding by our president obscures the fact that the slow whittling away of your conservative values has been absolutely artful. Inch by inch, you've been pulled from the shore of what you once stood for. At this point in the exercise, it is time for that last search of what may be left of your soul, because what's been done to our nation in your party's name--from the shaking of faith in our elections to our very survival on this warming planet-- will be carried as this nation's burden
from here on out.
46