Generational Dynamics World View

[Cynic Hero '86]

(07-05-2018, 11:00 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Incoherence of foreign policy fits a President who recognizes that Congress has budgetary power over war. The President can get away with a short, swift war such as invasions of Grenada and Panama against anti-American dictators who start posing some clear and present danger to American lives or security interests, or for the liberation of Kuwait. We get into big trouble when the President and Congress both approve of a war that starts going badly and then one of the partners starts to want out. So a practice of getting involved only in wars in which there is a clear objective, an easily-expressed justification, and an exit strategy might look incoherent, but it also keeps one from distinguishing the foreign policy of Bill Clinton or Barack Obama from that of the elder Bush.

A President with more vainglory, like Dubya to a lesser extent or Trump to an overpowering extent might not show so much scruple. Wars for profit have their constituencies. entities that I have no desire to discuss in detail. A steady flow of body bags from Iraq and Afghanistan can discredit a President's policy with Dubya.

Vainglory is dangerous, whatever ideology or personality it allegedly serves. As Americans recognize how badly things could go in Iraq and Afghanistan, we get another story about Venezuela. The President asked about the wisdom of invading the country. It looks like a big win due to profits for the armaments industry and quite possibly a takeover of the state-owned  oil company by American oil companies. Aggressive war is analogous in some ways to a hostile takeover in business -- the difference being that people don;t get killed in hostile takeovers in American business (so long as the businessmen aren't gangsters).

From the Associated Press:

Quote:BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) — As a meeting last August in the Oval Office to discuss sanctions on Venezuela was concluding, President Donald Trump turned to his top aides and asked an unsettling question: With a fast unraveling Venezuela threatening regional security, why can’t the U.S. just simply invade the troubled country?

The suggestion stunned those present at the meeting, including U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and national security adviser H.R. McMaster, both of whom have since left the administration. This account of the previously undisclosed conversation comes from a senior administration official familiar with what was said.

In an exchange that lasted around five minutes, McMaster and others took turns explaining to Trump how military action could backfire and risk losing hard-won support among Latin American governments to punish President Nicolas Maduro for taking Venezuela down the path of dictatorship, according to the official. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.

But Trump pushed back. Although he gave no indication he was about to order up military plans, he pointed to what he considered past cases of successful gunboat diplomacy in the region, according to the official, like the invasions of Panama and Grenada in the 1980s.

The idea, despite his aides’ best attempts to shoot it down, would nonetheless persist in the president’s head.

The next day, Aug. 11, Trump alarmed friends and foes alike with talk of a “military option” to remove Maduro from power. The public remarks were initially dismissed in U.S. policy circles as the sort of martial bluster people have come to expect from the reality TV star turned commander in chief.

https://www.apnews.com/a3309c4990ac45818...a-invasion

Venezuela is neither Grenada (which the Reagan team handled well) nor Panama (where the military strongman had threatened Americans and had been shown to be in collusion with international drug syndicates) ... it's a much bigger country. Despise Chavez or Maduro for demagoguery and a dictatorial course all that you want, an invasion of Venezuela is something that grown-ups  not going senile do not want unless those grown-ups consider war profits or asset seizures more valuable than human life. The adults in the room (then Tillerson and McMaster) are now.

This may not be so much a generational issue as one of character of a political leader. Maybe our current Crisis Era has been marking time until the leaders are in place to bring out its worst. I would not be surprised if President Trump called for some War for Profit -- and his glorification.

You do notice that there was a discussion of geopolitical issues on this thread? The Rest of us do not want to be distracted by this partisan clap-trap. Stop Cluttering up this thread with politically motivated nonsense.