Trump outlines ‘America first’ foreign policy

By Julian Hattem, THE HILL

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Wednesday called for the United States to “shake the rust off” its foreign policy and move toward an “America first” model in one of his most focused efforts to outline how his potential administration would operate.

In making a series of attacks on President Obama, Trump offered rough details on some of his proposals to withdraw many of the U.S.’s commitments from overseas and instead use economic leverage to accomplish its goals from afar.

“My foreign policy will always put the interest of the American people and American security above all else,” the Republican front-runner said during his policy speech in Washington.

The ideology would replace “randomness with purpose,” he claimed, “ideology with strategy and chaos with peace.”

Trump hammered on Obama’s legacy, which he characterized as weakening the American military and its foreign clout.

“If President Obama’s goal had been to weaken America, he could not have done a better job,” Trump claimed. Trump’s speech comes on the heels of his dominating victory in five primaries in Atlantic states on Tuesday, as part of what many are expecting to be a pivot to a more genial stance ahead of the general election.

His campaign has previously suggested Trump would begin offering a more restrained and “presidential” image as he gets closer to sealing the GOP nomination. However, the front-runner has appeared to backtrack on the planned evolution in recent days.

Throughout the course of the campaign, Trump has battled concerns from many foreign policy experts — including prominent Republicans — that his positions are too extreme and wouldrepresent a dramatic break with decades of U.S. leadership.

Among other points, he has called for the U.S. to ban Muslims from entering the country, demanded that Mexico pay for a wall along its border with the U.S., and suggested that Japan and South Korea obtain nuclear weapons.

He has also questioned the U.S.’s role within NATO, cast doubt on international trade agreements and promoted extreme military action that could qualify as war crimes, such as saying families of terrorists should be targeted.

His efforts to assemble a team of national security experts, meanwhile, has been relatively lackluster. An initial list of advisers left many Washington hands scratching their heads, and he has yet to surround himself with the types of veterans that would normally complement a leading presidential candidate.

Ahead of the speech, Trump’s rivals were already dismissing his stance as late-in-coming and full of bluster.

John Kasich “has assembled a 40-member national security team of experts,” his campaignboasted on Twitter. “Experience matters.”

Democrat Hillary Clinton‘s campaign, meanwhile, called his ideas “dangerous” and said Trump “has used the most reckless rhetoric of any major presidential candidate in modern history.”

April 28, 2016 | 9 Comments »

Leave a Reply

9 Comments / 9 Comments

  1. @ Laura:
    Laura, where and when in my Israpundit comments have I ever expounded on the purported and immutable truths of either conservatism or liberalism? I thought everyone around here knows exactly what my wife, kids, cousins, nephews and soon, my growing young granddaughters have long known; that I am heart and soul a radical who develops his own rationalia and game plans for life.

    Why “radical”? Because what I want are permanent and fundamental changes that I think will lead to more manageable commonwealths both of the United States, Israel, and wherever, whomever, and whatever else I care about.

    So I truly do not give a damn about whatever Trump espoused when he was big-time bribing politicians in order to get his super building projects authorized. My admittedly-slim level of understanding of super-size luxury hotel developments notwithstanding, I could not even imagine any developer getting official go-aheads without bribing elected officials up and down the line in the chain of power. Maybe that included cooing nonsense in hearing range of those elected bigshots. If I had been him, and I had so much money at stake, I’m sure I would have done the same thing.

    Trump is now all but certain to be the Republican Party nominee for President of the United States. And I think he will beat Clinton that first Tuesday in November. The reason I think that is because the biggest attractant of so many of us to that man has nothing to do with conservatism, liberalism, racism, sexism, or whatever else the news media babbles about.

    In fact, it’s all about the growing mood for authoritarianism. Don’t confuse that with totalitarianism. After all, we’re all Americans around here. Way more than 200 million of us are armed, and, most importantly, we are all self-aware of that. Which is why the National Rifle Association is more important than either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party.

    But authoritarianism, at least to me, means we have been searching for a no-bullshit leader who is able to look at the serious problems this country faces, and even more so, the interaction of those serious problems, and who can lay out a game plan for setting things straight. That precisely is what we all see in Trump.

    Chances are, you never served in the military forces of the United States. I did, late in the Korean War and its aftermath, 1952-1955. One of the things I liked about military service was its formally-arranged authoritarianism. We were made aware that we were there for just two purposes. Purpose number one was to receive orders. Purpose number two was to carry out those orders. I liked the symmetry and logic of that system, and I never forgot it over the ensuing 61 years since my ETS day (Expiration, Term of Service).

    So, Laura, I have considered that man my very own Commander in Chief ever since he announced his candidacy for President of the United States.

    Arnold Harris, Outspeaker

  3. @ Laura:

    I agree with you that you can not trust Trump because of radical shifts in position (many more than most people or politicians). Also his lack of foreign policy knowledge is very concerning and he contradicts himself on these issues.

    Some of those who have fallen in love with his cult of personality will attack you for bringing out your view point on Trump.

    All that said Hillary or Trump. I will roll the dice on Trump because I know Hillary comes up “craps”.

    My main candidate was always anyone but Bernie or Hillary.

  4. Some issues of inconsistencies in Trumps speech plus lack of knowledge were in VOX

    Perhaps the most telling error in Trump’s speech comes in his discussion of America’s allies. Trump said that one of the five big problems with American foreign policy was that America’s friends don’t trust its promises anymore. “Your friends need to know that you will stick by the agreements that you have with them,” he said.

    And yet, at the same time, Trump said another one of the biggest problems with American foreign policy was that “our allies are not paying their fair share.” He argued that “the countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense — and, if not, the US must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves.”

    So America needs to stick by its agreements with its allies — but it maybe should abandon them.

    This isn’t just a normal incoherence — it speaks to the heart of Trump’s command of the issues. One of the basic principle of American foreign policy, since World War II, is its commitment to its allies: Republicans and Democrats alike have seen its web of alliances from Europe to Japan as critical to ensuring global security.

    You can make a cogent case that America should scale back from these commitments and make allies pay more for their own defense, as a number of realist foreign policy scholars have. But you cannot make that argument and, at the same time, argue that America needs to reassure its allies that America remains firmly committed to their defense.

    Trump isn’t being heterodox here. He’s just being flatly incoherent, demonstrating that he either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care about one of the most important issues in American foreign policy. That’s a terrifying fact about a potential commander in chief.

    The speech was also peppered with obvious factual errors and outright lies. A small selection:

    Trump said “ISIS is making millions of dollars a week selling Libyan oil.” In fact, ISIS doesn’t control a single Libyan oil field.
    Trump said “I was totally against the war in Iraq.” In fact, he said he supported the invasion during a 2002 Howard Stern appearance.
    Trump said there are “scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism.” It’s hard to know who counts as a “recent migrant,” or what “charged with terrorism” means, but there’s no evidence this is true. Every deadly terrorist attack since 9/11 inside US borders has been committed by American citizens, per New America Foundation research.

    Now, every politician makes factual errors occasionally. But Trump’s errors are far more frequent than other candidates’ errors, and more troubling. Because he genuinely seems to know nothing about foreign policy, it seems like these fabrications — all of which cast Trump’s arguments in a better light — are simply replacing any need to learn more about the specifics of the issue.

    Trump, in other words, doesn’t understand the basic principles of American foreign policy — and doesn’t care about learning facts that might help him develop a better perspective

    http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518992/donald-trump-foreign-policy-speech

  5. @ ArnoldHarris:
    The fact is, prior to entering the race, Trump was instinctively liberal and funded left wing democrats and causes. He has been misrepresenting himself to the GOP base, but too many of them have been so swept up in a cult of personality, they don’t even care that they’ve been hoodwinked. How can you trust someone who you really have no idea what policy direction they will take? Republican voters will see what happens when you abandon principles for a cult of personality and blustery rhetoric over substance.

  7. I thought the speech laid a new foreign policy direction for the USA which was pro USA first and foremost. He did back Israel strongly and condemned Obama’s anti-Israel and anti-strong America policies and his Global first approach.

    The speech will not be compared to any of Regans’ or JFKs’ or any other great speaker. He had some contradictions. His ambition to resolve the Israeli Arab conflict is typical another new leader on the block with a huge ego. He admitted as much by saying he has to try because it is his competitive nature. He believes the world is just one transaction negotiated after another. Someone should have him read some of Martin Shermans articles so get can get a handle on what is going on.

    Great reaction to the speech came from Horowitz (Freedom Center)

    Trump’s themes were straightforward: Make America strong again, put America’s interests first. The Obama-Clinton-Kerry foreign policy has strengthened our enemies, disparaged our allies, and earned us global disrespect. It has led to disasters that include the rise of ISIS and the destabilization of the Middle East. The theme of the Obama-Clinton-Kerry years has been the weakening of America – point Trump with maximum bite: “If President Obama’s goal had been to weaken America, he could not have done a better job.” And of course the Jeremiah Wright-Billy-Ayers-radical-Barack Obama did set out deliberately to do just that. Obama’s agenda is American weakness, which leads to losing. Trump’s agenda: we must start winning.

    There were specifics. First a rejection of the neo-conservative dream of democratizing the world, and in its place old-fashioned conservatism: limited foreign policy goals and stability, as the framework of peace: “We are getting out of the nation-building business, and instead focusing on creating stability in the world.” And second, a rejection of liberal internationalism, and a defense of the nation state, in particular this nation state with its unique political culture: “Under a Trump Administration, no American citizen will ever again feel that their needs come second to the citizens of foreign countries. I will view the world through the clear lens of American interests. I will be America’s greatest defender and most loyal champion. We will not apologize for becoming successful again, but will instead embrace the unique heritage that makes us who we are.” And the (accurate) justification for this nationalism: The world is most peaceful, and most prosperous, when America is strongest.”

    These were reassuring clarifications by Trump about his foreign policy views and should be a step towards satisfying his conservative critics although obviously a speech can also be only that – words to pacify critics. We’ll have to wait and see how he elaborates it further in response to specific event. But this was a very good beginning.

    For me the most reassuring aspect of the speech was its political toughness, an indication of what is waiting for Hillary in November should Trump win the nomination: “After Secretary Clinton’s failed intervention in Libya, Islamic terrorists in Benghazi took down our consulate and killed our ambassador and three brave Americans. Then, instead of taking charge that night, Hillary Clinton decided to go home and sleep! Incredible. Clinton blames it all on a video, an excuse that was a total lie…. And now ISIS is making millions of dollars a week selling Libyan oil.”

    Can’t wait for those Trump-Hillary debates

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/horowitz-quick-reaction-trumps-speech

  8. I liked what Trump had to say. But I would add “Easier said, than done.”

    Nevertheless, he stressed some important points:
    – is it good for America, is his litmus test. This test will apply to not just foreign policy but also immigration as well.
    – he said he will support US friends but they must support America as well. For instance this could mean that he will demand of Saudi Arabia that it stop supporting Wahabism.
    – He is open to partnering with Russia and China on goals that we share
    – He said that the US will no longer support terrorists. Reading between the lines I imagined he was also referring to the Palestinians.
    – like Reagan, he supports peace through strength.
    – he wants to redo NATO. Its about time.
    – he wants to utterly destroy ISIS.
    – he supports stability over nation building.
    – he is against globalization and wants to support American Nationalism as a good thing. No doubt that will mean he will support Israel’s nationalism.
    – he wants our allies to pay their fair share of their defense.
    -he is against universalism
    – he embraces American values and rejects moral equivalency
    – he swore not to let Iran get the bomb during his administration
    – he was critical of Obama’s administration being so critical of Israel

    HE FAILED TO MENTION THE UN OR THE ISRAEL/ARAB CONFLICT.

    That’s just what comes to mind.

    He was out of his element delivering a written speech. He looked stiff and uncomfortable. He elicited a tepid response. He has to hire better speech writers.

  9. (I had posted this comment in Chit-Chat. But, with minor edits and additions, it properly belongs here.)
    ————————————————————

    Earlier today, I watched and listened to the entirety of Trump’s invited foreign policy speech in Washington DC. It was more than merely “presidential”. It was in fact the most forceful, comprehensively-scoped, and concisely-delivered policy speech I have seen or heard since the Reagan era.

    Nearly all of Trump’s massive rallies and impromptu interviews with television journalists have shown Trump as a forceful but repetitive person who talks without notes. But on this occasion, he wisely chose a prepared speech and use of a teleprompter.

    Many people will find reason to disagree with what they think are, or will be, his policies, if he is nominated and if he wins the general election. But having witnessed Trump render a formal policy speech, I think most people will begin regarding him as a much better national leader than as the buffoon that the liberal news media has tried to convince all of us to see in Trump. Because today, in that Washington foreign policy speech, he stood in comparison with some of the best of the great leaders of the United States.

    I wrote “if” when describing Trump’s likelihood of being nominated this summer, and then in November, elected to the Presidency of the United States. But all things considered, I am certain he will be nominated and will be elected as well.

    He will prove to be the opposite of all the misgovernment the USA has suffered since the era of James Earl Carter. And America First will not mean Israel Last.

    Some among you will undoubtedly hold me in ill regard for what I have written here. But I am old enough to recognize real quality when I see, hear, or read it. And I alone control my own mind and spirit.

    Arnold Harris, Outspeaker