The foreign policy toffs drop their tea cups and rage about Trump as 'destabilizing'

There's probably no group of arrogants out there with less capacity for introspection about their own abysmal record than the foreign policy establishment. These are the deep staters who launched the current impeachment bid against Trump on the pious grounds of "national security" that only they can know about, but they're also the big-headed boffins populating the abundant think tanks, foundations and universities, writing for all those high-toned foreign policy journals. 

Here's the latest tocsin from these guardians of global "order," warning of 'destabilization' from the the Atlantic monthly, which we are supposed to shiver about:

For years, the Council on Foreign Relations has asked hundreds of U.S. government officials and foreign-policy experts to rate the potential security crises that could most threaten the United States in the coming year. Typically the respondents have focused on the world’s hot spots. More top of mind this year, it seems, was the destabilizing force at home.

Yes, there is “rising anxiety about the state of the world,” Paul Stares, who oversees CFR’s annual poll, told me. And that anxiety, he added, “probably has a lot to do with the policies of the Trump administration,” and the “turbulence” and “instability” it has created around the globe.

...and...

“In the early months of [Trump’s] administration, there was some hope—call it wishful thinking—that he would become more appreciative of the U.S. role in the world, its contributions to international stability and peace and so on, and would essentially then follow the long-standing playbook of U.S. foreign policy,” said Stares, an expert on conflict prevention. “But that hasn’t been true. So we now are more prepared [for the] unexpected, or more cautious about how we project future U.S. policy.”

For these clowns, the only value they hold is "stability," which is to say, preserving the status quo. They had oodles of praise for President Obama on that one, not recognizing the reality that Obama accomplished nothing.

They say 'stability' like it's a good thing. I'm not even going to argue with them that Trump is a disruptor.

But who the hell is getting disrupted here? Number one, the world's tyrants. Life's bad for China these days now that Hong Kongers have gotten ideas about their own right to life and liberty and word has gotten out about their stacked trade practices, intellectual property theft and rotten treatment of their captive peoples in the Chinese far west. 

Life's also bad for Iran's mullahs, who are seeing protests like they've never seen.

Life's bad for the sleazy little tyrants of the European Union, who had hoped to lord over Britain and the rest of Europe without accountability or even democracy actually and steal their resources forever.

Life's bad for the entrenched elites of Latin America who for years have been living high on the hog off remittances (their central banks get access to the cash first as it's transmitted) from shipping their uneducated, illiterate poor people and the problems they present up to the gringos to pay for as illegals.

Life's bad for the haters of Israel as the U.S. moved its embassy to its rightful place in the capital, Jerusalem.

Life's bad for the creators of socialist hellholes where locals flee for their lives -- in Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba. 

Disruption? Damn right there's disruption, and it was disruption that was long long overdue. Trump's kind of disruption is like that of popping a bubble, breaking it now so it doesn't turn into a bigger festering boil that explodes on its own later. Trump sees the world not in terms of 'stability' as these arrogant hoity-toities do, but in terms of good guys, bad guys, and the importance of winning. The past deals that other presidents made with lousy regimes were supposed to be temporary alliances, often in the name of countering a worse threat. They've since become the established order and these bozos cannot see beyond it.

Why the heck does anyone want the status quo in some place like China or Iran? The most important argument about 'stable' tyrannies is the cold hard fact that they are never stable, they always collapse one way or another at some point and often it's very ugly.

If Trump's a destabilizer, maybe these striped-pantsuits might consider that Americans want this kind of destabilizer. The only people being destabilized are bad actors. The people winning are ... us.

But the Atlantic piece undercuts even the destabilizing argument, at the bottom of the piece, by pointing out that Trump has gotten us into fewer wars than past presidents:

In a separate forthcoming CFR report, Stares found that Trump has in the first three years of his presidency already weathered 14 foreign-policy crises (defined as an external event that triggers high-level deliberations about using the U.S. military), just one shy of the average since 1989 for a four-year presidential term. These have included North Korean nuclear and long-range missile tests, Syrian chemical-weapons attacks, Iranian military aggression, and skirmishes between the nuclear-armed states of India and Pakistan. But Trump has entered into no new wars, whereas all of his predecessors since George H. W. Bush had launched military interventions by this point in their presidency. Stares told me, however, that this state of affairs can’t simply be explained by Trump’s restraint in using military force.

Within their first term, George H. W. Bush had Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait; Bill Clinton, the Yugoslav wars; George W. Bush, the 9/11 terrorist attacks; and Barack Obama, the Arab Spring and its ugly aftermath. Trump hasn’t confronted a crisis that poses “an obvious threat to U.S. interests” and “would require a major deployment of U.S. forces, particularly in a new part of the world,” Stares told me. But if this year’s survey results are any guide, that test could yet come.

That's a mighty funny destabilizer whose crisis-count average is ... below average, and who somehow seems to keep us out of foreign wars.

If this is destabilization, give us more of it. All they managed to do with this kvetch is highlight for Americans that Trump's foreign policy record without these self-regarding experts is stellar.

 

There's probably no group of arrogants out there with less capacity for introspection about their own abysmal record than the foreign policy establishment. These are the deep staters who launched the current impeachment bid against Trump on the pious grounds of "national security" that only they can know about, but they're also the big-headed boffins populating the abundant think tanks, foundations and universities, writing for all those high-toned foreign policy journals. 

Here's the latest tocsin from these guardians of global "order," warning of 'destabilization' from the the Atlantic monthly, which we are supposed to shiver about:

For years, the Council on Foreign Relations has asked hundreds of U.S. government officials and foreign-policy experts to rate the potential security crises that could most threaten the United States in the coming year. Typically the respondents have focused on the world’s hot spots. More top of mind this year, it seems, was the destabilizing force at home.

Yes, there is “rising anxiety about the state of the world,” Paul Stares, who oversees CFR’s annual poll, told me. And that anxiety, he added, “probably has a lot to do with the policies of the Trump administration,” and the “turbulence” and “instability” it has created around the globe.

...and...

“In the early months of [Trump’s] administration, there was some hope—call it wishful thinking—that he would become more appreciative of the U.S. role in the world, its contributions to international stability and peace and so on, and would essentially then follow the long-standing playbook of U.S. foreign policy,” said Stares, an expert on conflict prevention. “But that hasn’t been true. So we now are more prepared [for the] unexpected, or more cautious about how we project future U.S. policy.”

For these clowns, the only value they hold is "stability," which is to say, preserving the status quo. They had oodles of praise for President Obama on that one, not recognizing the reality that Obama accomplished nothing.

They say 'stability' like it's a good thing. I'm not even going to argue with them that Trump is a disruptor.

But who the hell is getting disrupted here? Number one, the world's tyrants. Life's bad for China these days now that Hong Kongers have gotten ideas about their own right to life and liberty and word has gotten out about their stacked trade practices, intellectual property theft and rotten treatment of their captive peoples in the Chinese far west. 

Life's also bad for Iran's mullahs, who are seeing protests like they've never seen.

Life's bad for the sleazy little tyrants of the European Union, who had hoped to lord over Britain and the rest of Europe without accountability or even democracy actually and steal their resources forever.

Life's bad for the entrenched elites of Latin America who for years have been living high on the hog off remittances (their central banks get access to the cash first as it's transmitted) from shipping their uneducated, illiterate poor people and the problems they present up to the gringos to pay for as illegals.

Life's bad for the haters of Israel as the U.S. moved its embassy to its rightful place in the capital, Jerusalem.

Life's bad for the creators of socialist hellholes where locals flee for their lives -- in Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba. 

Disruption? Damn right there's disruption, and it was disruption that was long long overdue. Trump's kind of disruption is like that of popping a bubble, breaking it now so it doesn't turn into a bigger festering boil that explodes on its own later. Trump sees the world not in terms of 'stability' as these arrogant hoity-toities do, but in terms of good guys, bad guys, and the importance of winning. The past deals that other presidents made with lousy regimes were supposed to be temporary alliances, often in the name of countering a worse threat. They've since become the established order and these bozos cannot see beyond it.

Why the heck does anyone want the status quo in some place like China or Iran? The most important argument about 'stable' tyrannies is the cold hard fact that they are never stable, they always collapse one way or another at some point and often it's very ugly.

If Trump's a destabilizer, maybe these striped-pantsuits might consider that Americans want this kind of destabilizer. The only people being destabilized are bad actors. The people winning are ... us.

But the Atlantic piece undercuts even the destabilizing argument, at the bottom of the piece, by pointing out that Trump has gotten us into fewer wars than past presidents:

In a separate forthcoming CFR report, Stares found that Trump has in the first three years of his presidency already weathered 14 foreign-policy crises (defined as an external event that triggers high-level deliberations about using the U.S. military), just one shy of the average since 1989 for a four-year presidential term. These have included North Korean nuclear and long-range missile tests, Syrian chemical-weapons attacks, Iranian military aggression, and skirmishes between the nuclear-armed states of India and Pakistan. But Trump has entered into no new wars, whereas all of his predecessors since George H. W. Bush had launched military interventions by this point in their presidency. Stares told me, however, that this state of affairs can’t simply be explained by Trump’s restraint in using military force.

Within their first term, George H. W. Bush had Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait; Bill Clinton, the Yugoslav wars; George W. Bush, the 9/11 terrorist attacks; and Barack Obama, the Arab Spring and its ugly aftermath. Trump hasn’t confronted a crisis that poses “an obvious threat to U.S. interests” and “would require a major deployment of U.S. forces, particularly in a new part of the world,” Stares told me. But if this year’s survey results are any guide, that test could yet come.

That's a mighty funny destabilizer whose crisis-count average is ... below average, and who somehow seems to keep us out of foreign wars.

If this is destabilization, give us more of it. All they managed to do with this kvetch is highlight for Americans that Trump's foreign policy record without these self-regarding experts is stellar.