A column in Foreign Policy by Robert C. O'Brien, who "served as U.S. National Security Adviser from 2019 to 2021."
Trump was determined to avoid new wars and endless counterinsurgency operations, and his presidency was the first since that of Jimmy Carter in which the United States did not enter a new war or expand an existing conflict. Trump also ended one war with a rare U.S. victory, wiping out the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) as an organized military force and eliminating its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. But unlike during Carter’s term, under Trump, U.S. adversaries did not exploit Americans’ preference for peace. In the Trump years, Russia did not press further forward after its 2014 invasion of Ukraine, Iran did not dare to directly attack Israel, and North Korea stopped testing nuclear weapons after a combination of diplomatic outreach and a U.S. military show of force. And although China maintained an aggressive posture during Trump’s time in office, its leadership surely noted Trump’s determination to enforce redlines when, for example, he ordered a limited but effective air attack on Syria in 2017, after Bashar al-Assad’s regime used chemical weapons against its own people....
Much more at the link.
পোস্টগুলি
৬১টি মন্তব্য:
I bet the people watching the Putin/ Kim summit this week aren't laughing at Trump now.
Abraham Accords. Suleimani. USMCA. Peace in Europe. President Trump was developing a peaceful and stable world, which is of course why the WHO and their allies had to go well outside the lines to sabotage it. I'm sure they think they can manipulate him into attacking "their" enemies, but collective globalism is the biggest enemy MAGA has. And everyone knows it.
Nice that someone noticed.
and his presidency was the first since that of Jimmy Carter in which the United States did not enter a new war or expand an existing conflict. Trump also ended one war with a rare U.S. victory, wiping out the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) as an organized military force and eliminating its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
This is not mentioned enough in the Press, for obvious reasons.
Well reagan was also pretty uneventful the support for the nicaraguan resistance was a response grenada libya brush backs
I miss the days of Little Rocket Man.
WE'VE BEEN SAYING.
This is not mentioned enough in the Press, for obvious reasons.
What is also not mentioned is that more U.S. service personnel (by a good bit) were killed by enemy action under Trump than Biden. And not only did order more drone strikes in his four years than Obama's eight, but he further restricted access to details of the strikes.
"peace through strength"
Are Americans actually willing to pay for "strength"? Give up some "entitlements"? Pay off that student debt after all? Lower the green subsidies?
Right no one killed in afghanistan vs thirteen killed at abbey gate how about syria
The dirty, corrupt, and bumbling DC establishment was humiliated by Trump as an outsider and political novice. He said the emperors had no clothes... That's why they never stop trying to destroy him: he broke their self image and the perception of competence.
What is also not mentioned is that more U.S. service personnel (by a good bit) were killed by enemy action under Trump than Biden
Really? (Link)
@MadisonMan
I am amazed at how so few die as a result of hostile action. One life is too many, but as a percentage of those serving it is 1 in 100,000.
Thanks for that MadisonMan! I foolishly thought Freeder was probably telling the truth. I mean why lie about such an easily verified thing as military deaths?
We had peace and prosperity with Trump. Endless financing of wars and massive inflation with Biden.
But the Dumbshit Democrats don't care. They'd rather suffer with Biden than live well under Trump. "Well, I can't afford to go to MacDonalds, but at least those Goddamn Republicans are suffering too".
Really? (Link)
Really, and your link shows it.
Trump isn't a warmonger and neocon tool like Joe Brandon. He's a negotiator and business man. His preference is for peace and he loves to negotiate.
He has to bluster about this or that because 'muricans love it when their President talks tough. Smart people are against wasting billions on useless wars, but most 'muricans dont really care. So when you run for election, there's no point in posing as a Dove.
“What is also not mentioned is that more U.S. service personnel (by a good bit) were killed by enemy action under Trump than Biden“
This is the best I could do for a reference. Freider didn’t provide one.
Total service member deaths under Trump were 65. That’s for four years. But it’s not clear from the article how many were combat related as opposed to training accidents and so on.
The Biden numbers were lower but only include numbers for two years. 2023 numbers were not released as of the time of the article. DOD was running a little late. Strange in that we got nightly updates every day during the Iraq wars. I wonder why.
What are also not included are foreign deaths in wars that Biden has endorsed and you might say enabled. Like Ukraine. Some might find that to be an important omission.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-troop-deaths-under-joe-biden-compared-to-donald-trump/ar-BB1hrmCy
Thanks for that MadisonMan! I foolishly thought Freeder was probably telling the truth. I mean why lie about such an easily verified thing as military deaths?
If you can look at Madison Man's link and think it proves I am wrong, please explain how to me. 55 during the Trump administration, 13 during Biden (and yes we need to add three to that total for the airmen killed in Jordan). Last I checked, 16 is fewer than 55.
OOps, the correct number is 65, not 55.
But it’s not clear from the article how many were combat related as opposed to training accidents and so on.
The 65 is "hostile action". The military has a total of 900 or so deaths a year, mostly through accidents (both on duty and off duty) and suicide.
I thought ISIS was a made-up CIA critter--at least I read that here from time to time.
Does Trump get half credit?
Freder Frederson said...
If you can look at Madison Man's link and think it proves I am wrong, please explain how to me. 55 during the Trump administration, 13 during Biden (and yes we need to add three to that total for the airmen killed in Jordan). Last I checked, 16 is fewer than 55.
********************
No shit, Sherlock!
But the thing is, if you require your soldiers to cut and run, as cowardly Biden and incompetent Blinken did in Afghanistan, OF COURSE there will be fewer combat casualties.
DERP
Strange in that we got nightly updates every day during the Iraq wars.
Through the first Iraq war during Bush, not the ceasefire during Clinton, then during the end of the war during Bush, and not during the second Iraq war during Obama... and the World War Spring series.
What are also not included are foreign deaths in wars that Biden has endorsed
Wars by proxy are not counted. Wars of social justice rationalization are celebrated.
if you require your soldiers to cut and run, as cowardly Biden
Bring back our Afghanistan girls, boys, etc. And tens of billions of dollars in state of the art military gifts to the Taliban.
We'll never know how many US service mambers died in the last moments of our retreat from Afghanistan because they were left behind.
Freder you dumbass.
Now explain our proxy war in Ukraine. The war your buddy Biden authorized.
But the thing is, if you require your soldiers to cut and run, as cowardly Biden and incompetent Blinken did in Afghanistan, OF COURSE there will be fewer combat casualties.
I don't even know how to respond to this statement.
A lot of uncharacterized deaths in the last several years. No terrorist-caused deaths, ever.
if you require your soldiers to cut and run, as cowardly Biden and incompetent Blinken did in Afghanistan, OF COURSE there will be fewer combat casualties
The numbers were falling. Afghanistan seemed to be under control. Oh, well.
going after suleimani, an one off, an endeavour that should have happened nearly 20 years before, he caused some 700 casualties, you play these stupid games,
@Freder, perhaps you can explain your phrase "by a good bit"
As with all things Trump, you mischaracterize to make him look as bad as possible.
With >1M servicemen, you're saying a difference in the deaths of around 40 is 'a good bit'
My conclusion is you're innumerate.
My conclusion is you're innumerate.
Really?! Explain how I am innumerate. 65 is more than 16. The number is small compared to total troop numbers. But it is still larger. The initial comment that triggered this was narciso's claim that "Right no one killed in afghanistan vs thirteen killed at abbey gate how about syria", which of course complete bullshit.
Anyone want to hazard a guess as to how many US servicemen are in Ukraine? And how many, if any, have been wounded and/or killed.
Since much of what occurs in Ukraine in terms of contract military personnel serving in forward combat roles in Ukraine, on the US dime, we need to know the number of US contractor deaths in Ukraine to get a more accurate picture of US military personnel deaths by hostile action.
So Freder, what is that number?
After all, these "outsourced" contract US personnel, often wearing 2 hats so to speak, also qualify for full US military health and other benefits in their contractor status.
I stand corrected. I was looking at total deaths. The numbers are so small as to be essentially the same, but Freeder was right.
After all, these "outsourced" contract US personnel, often wearing 2 hats so to speak, also qualify for full US military health and other benefits in their contractor status.
Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?
Anyone want to hazard a guess as to how many US servicemen are in Ukraine? And how many, if any, have been wounded and/or killed.
I will. Both numbers are zero. If you have the smallest shred of evidence demonstrating otherwise, please present it. Even the Russians have never claimed that there are U.S. military personnel in Ukraine.
@Feder
You may also want to consider the recent rise of armed conflicts in the world in your discussion. During Trump's tenure the rate dropped year after year in an almost linear fashion. So far the rate has accelerated rapidly under Biden at a near hyperbolic rate. Almost doubling from Trumps low.
Since the post is about whose foreign policy is best it seems a salient point.
Freder's comparison is correct but hardly reflects well on Biden. The combat deaths under Trump were in Afghanistan, and his administration finally made a plan to get out. Biden's people monkeyed with that plan, and an additional 13 servicemembers died in the botched evacuation.
Certainly Trump could have ended the Afghanistan mission sooner, but that's true of every president since 2001.
The combat deaths under Trump were in Afghanistan, and his administration finally made a plan to get out.
And what exactly were Trump's plans for getting out of Afghanistan? (And if you are talking about Trump spewing bullshit after the fact of how he would have retained Bagram, how exactly would that have worked?)
not abandoning Bagram airbase for one,
meanwhile we are funding the Emirate, and the junior haqquani has emerged with respectability in Europe,
all those who cried afghan bounties, were silent when it came to abbey gate,
we don't know what happened to the hundreds of Americans and Afghan nationals caught behind after the fall of Kabul,
seeing as the Obama administration tried to deny combat pay to the victims of fort hood, I don't put anything past them,
From a couple years back (2018) which is in agreement with my understanding (from JAG dudes a few years before) and DBA is still in full effect.
Important: contractors are legally determined to NOT be mercenaries...but thats just a legalism to avoid international law ramifications despite US non signature status on specific international agreements.
"Reliable and detailed statistics are hard to find, mostly because many private military contractors work for the CIA and all aspects of their agreements are confidential. Nevertheless, most contractors earn between $300 and $750 a day, or between $9,000 and $22,500 per month. Some or most of this money may be “tax free,” as the IRS foreign earned income exclusion is $104,100 a year for 2018."
"So, both contractors and servicemembers need an injury compensation system. Servicemembers can rely on the Veterans Administration, and contractors can rely on the Defense Base Act. Under this 1941 federal workers’ compensation program, injured contractors are entitled to both lost wages and medical benefits.
Private military contractors, whether citizens or noncitizens, who work for the DoD or any other government arm and are injured in a foreign war zone, either as the result of an accident or by enemy activity, are eligible for DBA protection."
Again, the CIA/National Security aspect of control/oversight changes this game significantly in favor of our mercs/contractors with funding sources not always visible.
Also, many Private Military Contractor firms have their insurance coverage for personnel picked up by the Feds as part of the contract.
The above is from a specialized law firm discussion on these issues:
https://www.injuredoverseas.com/private-military-contractor-pay-vs-military-pay/#:~:text=Servicemembers%20can%20rely%20on%20the,lost%20wages%20and%20medical%20benefits.
Interesting gap: one of the most visible complaints by contractor personnel is the lack of post-deployment mental health/PTSD coverage.
So, how many contractor deaths due to hostile fire per year need to be added per our conversation?
You may also want to consider the recent rise of armed conflicts in the world in your discussion. During Trump's tenure the rate dropped year after year in an almost linear fashion. So far the rate has accelerated rapidly under Biden at a near hyperbolic rate. Almost doubling from Trumps low.
Can you provide a link for this assertion? I can't reply based only on this vague assertion. And even if true, can you explain why Trump was responsible, even tangentially, for the drop in armed conflicts?
So, how many contractor deaths due to hostile fire per year need to be added per our conversation?
Although this may be true, there is still no evidence that any U.S. contractors are operating in Ukraine, especially on the front line. If it were true, it would be incredibly stupid. Can you imagine the propaganda boost the Russians would get if they paraded a captured DoD contractor on tv.
Field Marshall Freder: "(And if you are talking about Trump spewing bullshit after the fact of how he would have retained Bagram, how exactly would that have worked?)"
LOL
It sure as hell isn't a position you give up, chalk full of US equipment, before setting up your last waypoint in the center of Taliban Central without any effective way to safely extricate yourself!
And yes, US and British troops demonstrated the ability to drop in and secure Bagram without significant support in 2001 and there is no reason Bagram could not have been held for a sufficient time to allow for much larger evacuations of US citizens and allied personnel instead of abandoning THOUSANDS of them...leading to additional ransom payments to the democraticals islamic supremacist pals after we bugged out in the most stupid fashion possible.
Field Marshall Freder: "Although this may be true, there is still no evidence that any U.S. contractors are operating in Ukraine, especially on the front line. If it were true, it would be incredibly stupid. Can you imagine the propaganda boost the Russians would get if they paraded a captured DoD contractor on tv."
LOL
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/28/politics/american-killed-ukraine/index.html
CNN
—
"An American citizen, Willy Joseph Cancel, was killed fighting alongside Ukrainian forces in Ukraine, members of Cancel’s family confirmed to CNN.
The 22-year-old was working with a private military contracting company when he was killed on Monday. The company had sent him to Ukraine, and he was being paid while he was fighting there, Cancel’s mother, Rebecca Cabrera, told CNN."
What we will never know are how many "former"/"ex" US military personnel "volunteers" have been "whitewashed" via CIA/US Intel to serve on Ukraine front lines but are still fully US personnel.
Freder Frederson said...
But the thing is, if you require your soldiers to cut and run, as cowardly Biden and incompetent Blinken did in Afghanistan, OF COURSE there will be fewer combat casualties.
I don't even know how to respond to this statement.
***********
Thant's OK: others have 'splained it, and handed your ass to you in the process.
he really thinks he has an argument, that comes from watching too much msnbc,
Can you provide a link for this assertion?
And how did I know that that would be your response? LOL. Yes I could. No I won't. Its easily accessible from several sources (with data and graphs) if you are interested. Most are just data without opinion on foreign policy consideration. Some of these sources also include the fact that the number of non-state actors involved has risen steadily throughout both Trump and Biden FWIW.
And even if true, can you explain why Trump was responsible, even tangentially, for the drop in armed conflicts?
Just presenting you with facts. You can research it yourself. Or not. Make your own conclusions. I just thought it relevant to the post.
The world appears to be a better place under Trump's foreign policy than Biden's to me when you take it in this light. And I'm guessing civilians in war torn countries might feel the same. That's my conclusion.
I'm not really into alternate history, but there is the example of Ukraine/Russia. Who really knows on that one besides Putin, despite what Trump says. And Iran's proxy war on Israel, which seems more straightforward given Biden's funneling cash to them. And the one that seems most important to me is the fact that a lot of that cash is being used to forward Iran's research on nuclear weapons. That one has yet to play out fully God help us all.
Really?! Explain how I am innumerate.
The phase "by a good bit" Can you explain how a miniscule fractional change is "a good bit"?
Freder Frederson said...
After all, these "outsourced" contract US personnel, often wearing 2 hats so to speak, also qualify for full US military health and other benefits in their contractor status.
"Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?"
Freder you dumbass
How do you think the Ukrainians learned to fight using American battle tactic.
Dumbass Freder said,
"And what exactly were Trump's plans for getting out of Afghanistan? (And if you are talking about Trump spewing bullshit after the fact of how he would have retained Bagram, how exactly would that have worked?)"
As I have said here before. Militarily it takes as least as long to withdraw from a country as it took to establish a beachhead. So. How long did it take, logistically, to establish our presents in Afghanistan? That is how long it would take to get out of Afghanistan in an organized fashion. With all the equipment we came with. (Think the first Marine Division in Korea) Trump was going to let the military handle it their way instead of surrendering. Which was Bidens way. Biden managed to arm the Taliban with some of the most modern arms in the world. So I don't want to hear a peep out of you about gun control.
The Freeder Freederson show is very boring.
Climate change is measured... modeled... reported in anomalies. It has changed a bit... up, down, and all around. A model of evolution... chaos is Her choice forevermore.
The Freeder Freederson show is very boring.
Agreed. I'm interested that he's (I'm assuming a male, but who knows) so invested in blocking the notion that Trump's 4 years were peaceful.
Robert O'Brien acknowledged that Trump's dealings with China cost American taxpayers dearly, through higher retail pricing, and a decline in low-cost purchases from the Chinese. We lost the trade war.
Trump is famously fond of deal-making, styling himself as a master of negotiation. He also views free trade negatively, bucking decades of Republican orthodoxy.
In March 2018, Trump tweeted, "Trade wars are good and easy to win"—a perplexing display of confidence, even putting aside that he had little experience setting American trade policy.
In practice, this meant slapping 10–25 percent tariffs on all imported Chinese goods, costing American consumers $42 billion in 2018 alone. China also retaliated by imposing tariffs and importing fewer U.S. goods; American industries as far-flung as soybean farmers, craft distilleries, and Alaskan fishermen suffered.
China is a preferred vendor for labor arbitrage (i.e. practical and actual slavery), environmental arbitrage (e.g. Green blight deals), and monetary manipulation... but, who isn't in this pre-, post-colonial era of liberalization. One step forward, two steps backward. They dabble in other progressive policies, too.
@gadfly
My understanding is that Trump's tariffs would have raised COGs in the US by 3% overall. A hit to the economy for sure, but peanuts compared to what we have done to ourselves these past 3 years. My main concern at the time was that negotiations on IP wasn't going to take place until Phase 3. My main concerns at present are that we are going to be unable to deal with China's trade practices due to the underlying political divide and China recognizes this.
*IMO the tariffs were the reason China let 250-300k Chinese out of country knowing for several months that a large percentage of them would be carrying Covid-19.
Trump was going to let the military handle it their way instead of surrendering.
Well, this is just bullshit. He was actually pushing to have them out by Christmas of 2020. And if you are contending that Trump was willing to let the "military handle it", then it would not have happened. You are just piling bullshit on top of bullshit.
Netanyahu unchained.
That said, another girl assaulted and raped by an illegal alien in the Rotting Apple.
Blacks... People of Black sent to the back of the bus, too, in an empathetic environment catering to the forward-looking Democratic demographic founded in Diversity, Equivocation, and Indoctrination (IED).
Throw another baby on the barbie, it's over.
He was actually pushing to have them out by Christmas of 2020.
I'm pretty sure the date set initially was March 2021. You can fact check me on that. Are you saying Trump was going to do the military planning himself?? But you may be right that the military would have refused him. There were a lot generals at the time who seemed to not understand who the CinC was. A harsher way of putting it is there were a lot of traitors Obama had put in place.
Freder Frederson said...
"Trump was going to let the military handle it their way instead of surrendering.
Well, this is just bullshit. He was actually pushing to have them out by Christmas of 2020. And if you are contending that Trump was willing to let the "military handle it", then it would not have happened. You are just piling bullshit on top of bullshit."
Freder you dumbass.
THe US military never goes anywhere without a plan. The US military long ago had a plan on invading Afghanistan at the same time they had a plan for withdrawing from Afghanistan. That plan always includes getting as much US military property out with them as they possibly can.
This is why all military loads are palletized. All all of it. From helicopters to hand towels. The US military isn't so much a fighting force. It is a logistical force. Warfighter s get to do their job after the pallets arrive.
That isn't me saying bullshit. That is how the military works.
Biden surrendered to the Taliban. Otherwise we would have left with our stuff. Instead we handed the taliban an impressive amount of military hardware.
Something else you might not be aware of. All that equipment? It has to be signed for. If you lose it, you pay for it.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন