Trump Dump: Foreign Policy (Thread I)

[Gandalf]

If the Taliban had turned over Osama bin Laden the US might not have invaded Afghanistan at all... but they refused to do so. For whatever reason, they were harboring a guy who masterminded a hit on the world's only remaining superpower. The notion that that would be ignored is ludicrous.

I will agree that the excursion into Iraq was needless and unjustified - indeed, I said so at the time. But Afghanistan? Going in to get the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks was reasonable. Do stuff beyond that? Debatable. But your notion that the US should have rolled over and taken the punch with 3,000 dead, acres of Manhattan real estate leveled, and a hole punched in the Pentagon is just plain out-and-out stupid.

Bush and company tore Iraq apart. Can the Iraqi government now attack Washington in order to get those who wrought such damage upon them?

[SCRawl]

If the Taliban had turned over Osama bin Laden the US might not have invaded Afghanistan at all... but they refused to do so. For whatever reason, they were harboring a guy who masterminded a hit on the world's only remaining superpower. The notion that that would be ignored is ludicrous.

I will agree that the excursion into Iraq was needless and unjustified - indeed, I said so at the time. But Afghanistan? Going in to get the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks was reasonable. Do stuff beyond that? Debatable. But your notion that the US should have rolled over and taken the punch with 3,000 dead, acres of Manhattan real estate leveled, and a hole punched in the Pentagon is just plain out-and-out stupid.

Bush and company tore Iraq apart. Can the Iraqi government now attack Washington in order to get those who wrought such damage upon them?

That's the thing about international relations: they aren't always fair. Iraq would be within their rights (insofar as there is any real concept as a "right" in this context) to attack the U.S. and demand reparations. The reality is that they don't have the means to do so, leaving aside the geopolitical ramifications should they decide to try. It's not fair, but might makes right if there's no police around.

[Gandalf]

Yeah, by virtue of having the news, I know that the world is unfair, and the myriad of war criminals that run and have run the US will all lead comfy lives despite the countless deaths they've caused. It's the same way that Bill Cosby and the Catholic Church got away with their crimes for so long; they were so powerful as to be untouchable.

But I'm sort of curious to know if Broomstick would consider a mass attack by Iraqis on the US reasonable given the circumstances.

[SCRawl]

Yeah, by virtue of having the news, I know that the world is unfair, and the myriad of war criminals that run and have run the US will all lead comfy lives despite the countless deaths they've caused. It's the same way that Bill Cosby and the Catholic Church got away with their crimes for so long; they were so powerful as to be untouchable.

But I'm sort of curious to know if Broomstick would consider a mass attack by Iraqis on the US reasonable given the circumstances.

My point is that the very lack of a fairness guarantee renders your question practically useless. How would any occupant of a country consider an attack from another country? If it has the means to do so, it would repel the attack and punish the attackers. If they don't, then they would just have to take it and either appeal to the international community or hope that the attack stops before everyone is dead.

Perhaps one day the U.S. will be rather further down the pecking order of countries, and their adversaries will be able to attack them with impunity. It's not very likely for Iraq to be one of these, considering their position in the world relative to North America, but the list of countries who have reason to feel aggrieved by the past conduct of the U.S. is long enough to have someone in the neighbourhood. Anyways, it won't tax your imagination to consider how anyone in the U.S. thus affected would feel about being attacked. They wouldn't like it or particularly care about the attackers' reasons for attacking, and nor should they. Because without anyone to police the situation, might makes right. As a result, reasonableness is just an unnecessary factor that can be ignored.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, by virtue of having the news, I know that the world is unfair, and the myriad of war criminals that run and have run the US will all lead comfy lives despite the countless deaths they've caused. It's the same way that Bill Cosby and the Catholic Church got away with their crimes for so long; they were so powerful as to be untouchable.

But I'm sort of curious to know if Broomstick would consider a mass attack by Iraqis on the US reasonable given the circumstances.

The current government of Iraq does not regard the US as an enemy as far as I know, is not at war with them, and would not have reason to attack them. I suppose an argument could be made that the current government of Iraq is a puppet of the US occupiers, and that its citizens would be justified in resisting both it and the US occupiers, but I admit that I don't know enough about the current situation on the ground to say if that holds water. If the government of Iraq withdrew from whatever agreements it has with the US and ordered all US troops to leave their country, and the US refused, the government of Iraq would be theoretically justified in waging war in self-defence (for all the good that it would do them in practice).

Iraqis would not be justified in engaging in revenge attacks on random Americans, because attacks on civilians are not justifiable for anyone, under any circumstance. Nor would Iraq be justified in pursuing a war of revenge at some point in the future when the current conflicts are distant history.

[The Romulan Republic]

Note that the scenario of Iraq telling the US to get the fuck out may not remain hypothetical for long:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... mand-leave

Iraqi lawmakers have demanded US forces leave the country in the wake of a surprise visit by Donald Trump, which politicians denounced as arrogant and a violation of Iraqi sovereignty.


Trump hails foreign policy shift on surprise visit to US troops in Iraq
Read more
Politicians from both blocs of Iraq’s divided parliament called for a vote to expel US troops and promised to schedule an extraordinary session to debate the matter.

“Parliament must clearly and urgently express its view about the ongoing American violations of Iraqi sovereignty,” said Salam al-Shimiri, a lawmaker loyal to the populist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.


Trump, making his first presidential visit to troops in a troubled region on Wednesday, said he had no plans to withdraw the 5,200 US forces in the country.


Containing foreign influence has become a hot-button issue in a year that saw Sadr supporters win the largest share of votes in May elections. Sadr has called for curbing US and Iranian involvement in Iraqi affairs.

US troops are stationed in Iraq as part of the coalition against the Islamic State terror group. American forces withdrew in 2011 after invading in 2003 but returned in 2014 at the invitation of the Iraqi government to help fight the jihadist group.

But after defeating Isis militants in their last urban bastions last year, Iraqi politicians and militia leaders are speaking out against the continued presence of US forces in Iraqi soil.

Though Isis has lost a significant amount of territory in Iraq and Syria, it is still seen as a threat.

Qais Khazali, the head of the Iran-backed Asaib Ahl al-Haq militia that fought key battles against Isis in north Iraq, promised on Twitter that parliament would vote to expel US forces from Iraq, or the militia and others would force them out by “other means”.

Khazali was jailed by British and US forces from 2007 to 2010 for managing sections of the Shia insurgency against the occupation during those years.

His militia is represented in parliament by the Binaa bloc, a rival coalition to Sadr’s Islah. Binaa favors close ties with Iran and is aligned with Tehran on regional political issues.

Trump spent three hours at a US air base meeting with American troops during his visit. He defended his decision to withdraw 2,000 US troops from neighboring Syria, saying the US military had all but eliminated Isis-controlled territory there.

He left without meeting any Iraqi officials, though he spoke to the prime minister, Adil Abdul-Mahdi, by phone.

Abdul-Mahdi’s office said in a statement after Trump’s visit that “differences in points of view” over arrangements led to a face-to-face meeting between the two leaders being scrapped.

Shimiri said Trump’s visit “violated several diplomatic norms”.

[Broomstick]

But I'm sort of curious to know if Broomstick would consider a mass attack by Iraqis on the US reasonable given the circumstances.

I'd consider it fucking stupid.

And not just because I live in the US - if the bully/bad guy were Russia then Iraq attacking it would also be fucking stupid, or if the bad buy was China, or the UK or France.... It's stupid because it would start a shooting war Iraq would lose. It would not be because of justice but because those nations are so much more powerful than Iraq. As already pointed out no, it is not fair.

I would support Iraq taking it to some sort of international court and getting some sort of reparations or rebuilding assistance... except that's not going to happen, particularly with the US. Personally, just to make it very clear, yes, if the US went into Iraq under false pretenses (which I believe to be the case) the US should pay some sort of reparations/help with rebuilding. That is my position. It is not, however, the position of the people in charge of the US.

I would have also been happy if the US could have taken their case for wanting bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks to an international court that could have compelled the Taliban to hand him over without bloodshed, but that didn't happen, either.

International affairs are not democratic, they are either outright "might makes right" or feudal, in that you have powerful states with vassals. Again, it's not fair. It is often unjust. It is also reality right now.

You're trying to apply the rule of law to circumstances where it doesn't exist. There is no international law, only treaties. There are no international police. The only way to compel a nation to do something is by force, and if the nation is more powerful than most (or all) others then the little guy is fucked.

Really, international affairs should make libertarians very happy, because it's all about a bunch of individuals interacting with each other without a government "interfering" with contracts and relations. It also illustrates why libertarianism sucks donkey dick, because without government the bullies will rule and do whatever they please and the little guy either cozies up with a different bully (re-inventing feudalism) or is shit out of luck.

[The Romulan Republic]

In non-Syria-related news:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-bor ... -1.4960459

President Donald Trump threatened on Friday to close the U.S. southern border if Congress does not agree to provide $5 billion US in taxpayer funds for his promised wall along the border with Mexico.

Trump was in the White House firing off angry tweets while large parts of the federal government are shut down for lack of funding in a dispute over the proposed wall and Congress is adjourned until next week.

"We will be forced to close the Southern Border entirely if the Obstructionist Democrats do not give us the money to finish the Wall & also change the ridiculous immigration laws that our Country is saddled with," Trump said on Twitter.


"Either we build (finish) the Wall or we close the Border."

The Republican president also reiterated threats to cut off all U.S. aid to Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, which he said were not doing anything to stop the flow of migrants toward the United States.

Asked about Trump's border-closing threat, Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador told reporters it was an internal U.S. government matter. "We take great care of the relationship with the government of the United States," Lopez Obrador said.

"Of course we will always defend our sovereignty … we will always protect migrants, defend their human rights," he said.

Trump campaigned on a promise that Mexico would pay for the wall, not the U.S.

Poll: Americans blame Trump

A spokesperson for U.S. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said on Thursday that Republicans and Democrats were still far apart in efforts to resolve the shutdown, which started on Saturday. Democrats have offered support for $1.3 billion in funding for general border security, but have long opposed the building of a wall.

According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Thursday, 47 per cent of Americans hold Trump responsible for the shutdown, while 33 per cent blame Democrats in Congress.

In television interviews on Friday, Trump aides sought to put the blame for the continuing shutdown on the unwillingness of Democrats to make a deal, singling out Nancy Pelosi who is set to become the House of Representatives Speaker next week after Democrats won a majority in the chamber in November elections.

ANALYSISHow Trump could emerge the political loser over government shutdown
U.S. Democrats withdraw $25B offer to fund Trump's border wall
"Nancy Pelosi is only looking to protect her speakership but not protect our borders and that's why she's unwilling to negotiate with us and unwilling to make any type of a deal and unwilling to help do what is necessary," White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders said on CBS This Morning.

Mick Mulvaney, acting White House chief of staff, told Fox News Channel: "Where is Chuck Schumer? Where is Nancy Pelosi? They're not even talking right now."

Mulvaney said Trump, who scrapped plans to spend Christmas in his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida and stayed in Washington because of the partial shutdown, has also cancelled his New Year's plans.


Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen is scheduled to visit El paso today, following the death in U.S. detention of a second migrant child. (Susan Walsh/Associated Press)
Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen planned to visit the border city of El Paso, Texas, later today following the death of a second migrant child in detention. She is scheduled to tour multiple stations and substations operated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Nielsen was also scheduled to meet with emergency medical technicians and medical professionals, as well as local officials.

This man is a fucking terrorist. If he doesn't get his way, he will shut down the border (realistically meaning an illegal deployment of the armed forced on the border) and destroy the economy. He is also threatening to cut off humanitarian aid to Central American countries, increasing misery and death and prompting more people to flee over the border, which proves this has fuck-all to do with securing the border- its about spite, about pandering to his white nationalist base, and hurting and killing brown people for the sake of hurting and killing brown people.

THIS is why the Democrats should not give an inch, should never capitulate to end the shutdown. Because if we show Trump that he can get anything he wants by holding hostages, he will keep taking more and more hostages, and we will have to keep capitulating to him again and again.

[Broomstick]

I actually do not think it is about "pandering to his white nationalist base, and hurting and killing brown people for the sake of hurting and killing brown people".

You had it correct with the three words proceeding that: "its about spite"

Trumps wants something. He doesn't seem to understand that being PotUS does NOT make him dictator/king/whatever. No president gets everything he wants.

So let him shut the southern border - Mexico will still be trading with the rest of the world. Meanwhile, folks here in the US, including businesses will suffer and scream bloody murder.

Will it cause suffering in the US? Yes, almost certainly. I'm pretty sure we'll all survive the experience. If it leads to getting rid of Trump - either by voting him out in 2020 or impeaching him - I'm OK with that.

[bilateralrope]

I wonder how many US citizens will get stuck south of the border when Trump closes it.

[aerius]

This man is a fucking terrorist. If he doesn't get his way, he will shut down the border (realistically meaning an illegal deployment of the armed forced on the border) and destroy the economy. He is also threatening to cut off humanitarian aid to Central American countries, increasing misery and death and prompting more people to flee over the border, which proves this has fuck-all to do with securing the border- its about spite, about pandering to his white nationalist base, and hurting and killing brown people for the sake of hurting and killing brown people.

I'm not well versed on military law. Can you explain why deploying armed forces to shut down the border is illegal? And I'd like a reference to the specific laws in question.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Posse Comitatus Act forbids the use of regular US Armed Forces for domestic operations. unless martial law/state of emergency is declared.

[aerius]

Thanks. I am not a lawyer, but I took a quick look through those laws and there appear to be more loopholes than I can count. I can see ways that using the army to seal the border could be argued as legal.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, there's what Trump already did- or rather what the Pentagon did to interpret the initial order to deploy troops to the border in a way that was arguably legal- they deployed troops purely in a logistical support role, rather than a law enforcement/combat role. You can also deploy National Guard troops without violating Posse Comitatus. However, active duty troops are supposed to be deployed only in a state of emergency, which IIRC is supposed to be declared by Congress, not by executive fiat of the President.

I suppose he could also try to argue that the immigrants are literally an invading army and should be treated as enemy soldiers, which would be ludicrous and evil in equal measure, but of course his base would swallow it right up.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Well, there's what Trump already did- or rather what the Pentagon did to interpret the initial order to deploy troops to the border in a way that was arguably legal- they deployed troops purely in a logistical support role, rather than a law enforcement/combat role. You can also deploy National Guard troops without violating Posse Comitatus. However, active duty troops are supposed to be deployed only in a state of emergency, which IIRC is supposed to be declared by Congress, not by executive fiat of the President.

I suppose he could also try to argue that the immigrants are literally an invading army and should be treated as enemy soldiers, which would be ludicrous and evil in equal measure, but of course his base would swallow it right up.

A state of emergency can be declared by executive order. And, aerius is correct, Posse Comitatus is riddled with loopholes, which, unfortunately, appear to be a feature, not a bug. I only touched upon the most obvious loophole in my post above.

And, why would it be ludicrous, Rom? We've already crossed the bridge of treating civilians, even unarmed ones, as unlawful enemy combatants; the precedent has already been set.

[The Romulan Republic]

I said it would be ludicrous, not that Trump wouldn't do it. There are many absurd practices which have precedent. I'm sure lots of people would accept the argument, but it doesn't change the fact that it would be inhuman and insane (I'll add that if troops acting on the President's orders fired on unarmed civilians, I would regard that as a casus belli for armed resistance against the Trump regime).

[U.P. Cinnabar]

I said it would be ludicrous, not that Trump wouldn't do it. There are many absurd practices which have precedent. I'm sure lots of people would accept the argument, but it doesn't change the fact that it would be inhuman and insane.

Of course it would be inhuman and insane, that is inarguable. But, we've become more tolerant of such things as a nation. Or, at least too many of us have become tolerant of this and other insane, inhuman things, and the rest either stomp their feet and wave their signs, even knowing that's as useless as "thoughts and prayers,' or are too afraid to do anything other than going along for the ride.

Maybe I am becoming more cynical, as I age. But, I have seen too much I'd just as soon unsee.

(I'll add that if troops acting on the President's orders fired on unarmed civilians, I would regard that as a casus belli for armed resistance against the Trump regime).

It should be, for decent men and women. The question is, what will many Americans consider it? A cause for celebration? To join in the massacre? Or another incident chalked up to crisis actors and fake news, and thus, to be denied?

[The Romulan Republic]

No, I don't think that it would be celebrated or denied by most Americans at this point, but I also don't think that by itself would be enough to motivate most Americans to armed resistance. It takes a lot to push a populace to armed revolt, and frankly, that's a good thing, as a general principle. But it means that if Trump really goes full dictator, we can't count on a popular uprising to save us- our best hope, frankly, might be an attempted coup by elements of the intelligence community, which is not saying much. And its another reason why I'm normally so wary of condoning any support for armed resistance, even as a hypothetical. Aside from the obvious moral and legal reasons one might oppose such actions, I have little desire for elements of the Left to start a war that we can't win, and that will likely only end by strengthening the Trumpers.

Our best hope remains that we get mass turnout in 2020, ideally as far above usual Presidential election turnout as 2018 was above usual midterm levels. That's how this should be resolved- by the voice of the people, speaking out in unified denunciation of Trumpism. I think a lot will also hinge on two things:

1. Does Mueller bring forward something really damning that implicates Trump directly, such that the majority of the nation feels Congress has a duty too impeach.

2. Does the economy tank. Because sad to say, a lot of people are simply too wrapped up in their own lives and won't take action, even if they theoretically oppose Trump, until his policies start biting them personally in the ass. Or aren't even really paying attention at all. Distant reports about horrible things happening to other people at a border a thousand miles away don't mean much, compared to your own family starting financial ruin in the face. Note also that the last time America experienced really wide-spread and prolonged civil unrest was during the Vietnam War, when hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans faced the prospect of being drafted. You need something like that, that hits the average citizen where they live in a very visible and direct way, to really get people to act en mass.

[Broomstick]

Posse Comitatus Act forbids the use of regular US Armed Forces for domestic operations. unless martial law/state of emergency is declared.

Arguably, the national border is not a "domestic operation" given that it's bumping up against a foreign nation.

[Broomstick]

You can also deploy National Guard troops without violating Posse Comitatus. However, active duty troops are supposed to be deployed only in a state of emergency, which IIRC is supposed to be declared by Congress, not by executive fiat of the President.

The National Guard of a state can also be deployed by the governor of said state - the fact this hasn't happened leads me to believe that the alledged invading hordes are so invading.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

It strikes me that Trump announcing he's pulling the troops out of Syria does kind of mirror the situation surrounding the Vietnam War, albeit nowhere near the same scale.

As for armed resistance it seems like it'll take the form of rioting- I cannot envision it going past that.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Posse Comitatus Act forbids the use of regular US Armed Forces for domestic operations. unless martial law/state of emergency is declared.

Arguably, the national border is not a "domestic operation" given that it's bumping up against a foreign nation.

The Act, as has been stated, is riddled with loopholes, and technicalities such as that. Which comes as no surprise, as the US military has historically been a club for Presidents, other politicos, and their corporate benefactors alike to use to beat down their enemies; examples include Blair Mountain and the Bonus Army(both before the passage of the Act).

[Gandalf]

I'd consider it fucking stupid.

And not just because I live in the US - if the bully/bad guy were Russia then Iraq attacking it would also be fucking stupid, or if the bad buy was China, or the UK or France.... It's stupid because it would start a shooting war Iraq would lose. It would not be because of justice but because those nations are so much more powerful than Iraq. As already pointed out no, it is not fair.

I didn't ask about fair. You said that the US' actions in Afghanistan were reasonable, and I wondered if the same rationale worked in a different direction.

The rest of your post goes on some other odd direction.

I would support Iraq taking it to some sort of international court and getting some sort of reparations or rebuilding assistance... except that's not going to happen, particularly with the US. Personally, just to make it very clear, yes, if the US went into Iraq under false pretenses (which I believe to be the case) the US should pay some sort of reparations/help with rebuilding. That is my position. It is not, however, the position of the people in charge of the US.

I would have also been happy if the US could have taken their case for wanting bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks to an international court that could have compelled the Taliban to hand him over without bloodshed, but that didn't happen, either.

International affairs are not democratic, they are either outright "might makes right" or feudal, in that you have powerful states with vassals. Again, it's not fair. It is often unjust. It is also reality right now.

You're trying to apply the rule of law to circumstances where it doesn't exist. There is no international law, only treaties. There are no international police. The only way to compel a nation to do something is by force, and if the nation is more powerful than most (or all) others then the little guy is fucked.

Really, international affairs should make libertarians very happy, because it's all about a bunch of individuals interacting with each other without a government "interfering" with contracts and relations. It also illustrates why libertarianism sucks donkey dick, because without government the bullies will rule and do whatever they please and the little guy either cozies up with a different bully (re-inventing feudalism) or is shit out of luck.

I'm not sure how this is related to what I wrote, or if it's even meant to be. I was trying to apply rule of law?

[SCRawl]

I'm not sure how this is related to what I wrote, or if it's even meant to be. I was trying to apply rule of law?

In a nutshell, this is the problem with your question. For international relations, in a very practical sense there's no such thing as the rule of law.

[Broomstick]

As for armed resistance it seems like it'll take the form of rioting- I cannot envision it going past that.

Of course not. Despite the 2nd amendments and the gun nuts the American citizenry is laughably outgunned by the US military.