The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Paul Archive
Troops Coming Home from Afghanistan? Depends on Who You Ask.
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Foreign policy has really been dysfunctional in President Trump’s first term. No sooner does the president make a strong foreign policy statement than one of his appointees grabs a microphone to explain what the president “really meant.”

Earlier this month, President Trump Tweeted that, “we should have the small remaining number of our BRAVE Men and Women serving in Afghanistan home by Christmas!”

It was a very encouraging statement. But almost immediately his statement was “clarified” – actually refuted – by two Administration officials.

First, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Mark Milley, directly contradicted his boss – who also happens to be his Commander-in-Chief – stating, “It’s a conditions-based plan. We’re continuing to monitor those conditions.”

Then President Trump’s National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien told us that the president’s statement was merely an expression of his “desire.” “All presidents, all GIs, want the troops home by Christmas,” he said on Friday.

Then Milley and O’Brien launched a war of words against each other over troop withdrawal, with Milley attacking O’Brien’s “clarification” that 2,500 troops would remain in Afghanistan until at least early next year. Milley called it “speculation.”

O’Brien fought back, stating that it “has been suggested by some that that’s speculation. I can guarantee you that’s the plan of the President of the United States.”

It’s hard to follow!

While President Trump’s statement on bringing the troops home is to be applauded, he has a real problem getting his policies implemented by the very people he has hired to do the implementing. It has long been said that “the personnel is the policy,” and we have seen this very clearly in this administration.

President Trump ran on a sensible foreign policy, defining “America first” as getting the US out of endless and counterproductive wars. Many, me included, believe this position may have provided his margin of victory. The “peace candidate” nearly always wins.

But you cannot pursue an “America first” foreign policy if you put people like Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, Nikki Haley, Mark Milley, and others in charge of carrying it out. They simply won’t do it. We are seeing that again when it comes to withdrawing our troops from the long and foolish war in Afghanistan.

For a president once made famous for uttering the line “you’re fired,” Trump seems unwilling or perhaps unable to dismiss those who actively seek to undermine his policies.

There is no need for endless negotiations with the Taliban on what the country might look like or should look like when we get out. The only way to get out of Afghanistan is to just get out of Afghanistan. To just come home. Nineteen years fighting a losing battle to re-shape a country thousands of miles away about which the “experts” know nothing is more than enough.

But if there is ever a “danger” of a war coming to a close, Washington’s warmongers are right there trying to stir up another conflict. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said late last week that would like to see huge military spending increases to counter the “threat” of Russia and China.

Robbing Middle America to enrich the millionaires in the military-industrial complex seems to be the one issue universally supported in Washington. But it is not at all what the American people want. Will Trump have another chance to pursue an actual “America first” foreign policy? Soon we will know…

(Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 24 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. gay troll says:

    We must give Trump 4 more years to bring home the troops, lock her up, build the wall, and declassify the JFK files. Q said Hillary will be arrested next week, 3 years ago. Trust the plan, sheep!

    [When I picture Q it’s not some patriot with top level security clearance, it’s John DeLancie fucking around with the good men and women of the Enterprise]

    • Replies: @Wyatt
  2. A123 says:

    Trump is the first President in modern history who has not started a new foreign war.

    Despite establishment Deep State obstructionism, Trump has de-escalated several overseas engagements. His 2nd term should end the folly of the Obama Surge in Afghanistan. (1)

    White House National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien on Friday doubled down on a plan first announced by President Trump last week to withdraw the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to 2,500 by Christmas, despite pushback from top Pentagon leaders.

    The choice is clear. If you want U.S. troops to:

    — Leave Afghanistan — Vote Trump
    — Stay in Afghanistan — Vote Harris/Biden

    PEACE 😇
    _______

    (1) https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/16/robert-obrien-doubles-down-rapid-afghanistan-withd/

    • Troll: Harold Smith
  3. Trump is the first President in modern history who has not started a new foreign war.

    The term is young.

  4. Wyatt says:
    @gay troll

    Unfortunately, John de Lancie is a never Trumper, but then again, every one of those hippy-dippy shitheads from TNG is a libtard worthy of a warp core breach.

    Ironically enough, the only decent man from that misbegotten series is Reginald Barclay. Of all people, the turbo fuck-up is the only good person in reality.

    • LOL: gay troll
  5. I wonder if there’s anyone in Washington who could or would implement a peace policy? Perhaps the species is extinct?

    • Replies: @Jokem
  6. @A123

    What is “modern history” to you?

    • Replies: @A123
  7. A123 says:
    @Supply and Demand

    What is “modern history” to you?

    I confess that “Modern U.S. History” is a somewhat vague and possibly moving term. Possibly not the best phrase on my part.

    I tend to think of the U.S. World Wars era wrapping up throughout the post-war 1950’s (Eisenhower). And, the U.S. Modern period beginning with Johnson’s follies in the 1960’s. You could place Kennedy’s brief stint on either side of that fuzzy division.

    Did Ford avoid new foreign wars? He may also deserve a favourable mention along with Trump.

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  8. Mr Paul is correct. The fact that Trump made those statements and then appointed all the foreign policy people that he did – shows that he wasn’t really serious.

  9. @A123

    Trump is the first President in modern history who has not started a new foreign war.

    Yep; the idiot even tried and failed at that too. (Which is probably a good thing since America’s next war will probably bring about its destruction).

    Despite establishment Deep State obstructionism, Trump has de-escalated several overseas engagements.

    I don’t know if your evil orange messiah actually de-escalated anything anywhere, but I’ve got to give credit where it’s due and his nuclear brinkmanship is second to none.

    https://sputniknews.com/military/202010171080804348-russia-to-respond-to-us-deployment-of-missiles-in-asia-pacific-region-ambassador-says/

    The choice is clear. If you want nuclear war (and you want to share moral responsibility for that and/or other atrocities) vote for the evil orange clown.

    • Troll: A123
    • Replies: @A123
  10. A123 says:
    @Harold Smith

    RACIST Harold,

    Thank you for admitting that you follow extreme SJW Globalist theology.

    orange clown.

    Behold. RACIST Harold openly judges the President by the color of his skin not the content of his character.

    Here are two suggestions for you:

    -1- Be Less Racist
    -2- Be quiet and let the adults speak

    Though I suspect your advanced case of mouth frothing, Trump Derangement Syndrome [TDS] has rendered you incapable of either of these incredibly simple tasks.

    PEACE 😇

    • Troll: Harold Smith
    • Replies: @Harold Smith
  11. @A123

    Mr. Ford was President while the Cold War was still in full swing. My feeling for what should be considered “modern history” regarding US warmongering should be since the end of the Cold War. That’d mean a 30 year period. That’d make you right, A123.

  12. I hate to embarrass myself to myself by agreeing with ShowMeTheReal, but he wrote what I’ve written many times on my blog. You don’t hire people who are against you to work for you. Wanna’ drain the swamp? Don’t hire swamp creatures.

    However, I don’t believe President Trump made these bad (for us) hiring moves because he’d been lying all along. Even though he ran a big real estate development firm, and would probably know how to pick the right people in that industry, I think he figured politics in Washington was not really his field. He may have figured he needed people who’d been in Washington, F.S. a while, meaning he didn’t have the confidence to realize that Campaign Trump had the right instincts. Most of President Trump’s employees have not worked out well at all.

    • Replies: @A123
  13. A123 says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I don’t believe President Trump made these bad (for us) hiring moves because he’d been lying all along. … I think he figured politics in Washington was not really his field. He may have figured he needed people who’d been in Washington,

    I have to respectfully disagree.

    Remember that Trump is President, not an Ayatollah or an Emperor. The Constitution requires Presidential appointments to receive Senate confirmation. In order to get the first round of nominations through the Senate quickly, establishment GOP(e) Senators obtained substantial concessions. Many of the worst hiring moves were theirs not his.

    It is unreasonable to blame Trump for not instantly obtaining 100% of everything within seconds of being sworn in. Even now, 4 years later, GOP(e) Senators including Romney have significant influence.

    Most of President Trump’s employees have not worked out well at all.

    The term “most” is an overstatement, however there have been some spectacular failures.

    You have to go back 2,000+ years to find a betrayal like Jeff “Recusal” Sessions. I hope he enjoyed his 30 pieces of silver. Imagine how much more Trump would have accomplished if the absurd & bogus RussiaGate investigation had been quashed by DOJ.

    PEACE 😇

  14. Jokem says:

    I have to disagree partly with Dr Paul on this Afghanistan enterprise.
    They converted airliners into FAE bombs and killed about 3000 people, as well as massive destruction.

    I think the conflict over there has gone on too long, but would not have if we would have run it like a war.

  15. Jokem says:
    @animalogic

    ‘I wonder if there’s anyone in Washington who could or would implement a peace policy? ‘

    Just ask the enemies of the western world. If you show them you are not willing to go to war, they will.

    • Replies: @animalogic
  16. @Jokem

    What enemies ? Nut-job Islamists ? Best way to stop them is to stop paying them…
    What’s inconsistent between pursuing peace, but also following a reasonable defense policy ?

    • Replies: @Jokem
  17. Jokem says:
    @animalogic

    Too late to take the money back from Iran.

  18. What “money” ? Where did it come from ? When was it conveyed to Iran ?
    Are you somehow referring to the old Iran-Contra thing from the late 80’s ?
    Or back further to the Shah ?

    • Replies: @Jokem
  19. Jokem says:
    @animalogic

    I am referring to the money handed off by Barack Obama to Iran as part of the treasonous ‘Iran deal’.

    • Replies: @A123
    , @animalogic
  20. A123 says:
    @Jokem

    Jokem,

    Do you mean this cash?

    PEACE 😇
     

    • Replies: @Jokem
  21. Jokem says:
    @A123

    ‘Do you mean this cash?’

    I guess. I am not sure if it can be called ‘Cash’, but yes.

  22. @Jokem

    OK, I realise I’m wasting my time here, but…. whatever.
    The money sent to Iran was $ 400 MIL from prior to ’79 — it was money paid into Iran’s defence purchases fund ie to buy US weapons. After 79, the US froze the fund. As part of the nuclear deal those monies were repaid with interest (about $ 1.7 BIL’ – it was believed if Iran litigated the interest they had a reasonable chance of more) .
    You can call the deal bad, but hardly treasonous – Iran had no nuclear program before the deal (for 10 yr’s or so) & promised not to restart it. How is it treason to prevent nuclear proliferation? Or is the treason the illegal sanctions?
    Basically, it’s OK for the US to pay terrorists, but not anyone else (except for Israel, Saudi etc)
    And incidentally I loathe Obama & dislike needing to defend the arsehole.

  23. Jokem says:

    ‘How is it treason to prevent nuclear proliferation? Or is the treason the illegal sanctions?’

    He made a treaty with a people hostile to the USA that we did not have diplomatic relations with, without consent of the Senate. I call that treason.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Paul Comments via RSS