261 sats \ 23 replies \ @Undisciplined 6h \ on: Who Has Trump Tapped For His Cabinet? Politics_And_Law
Better than normal, but worse than hoped.
I don't disagree with any of the appointments ideologically, but I'm skeptical of their ability to rein in the bureaucracy.
reply
The foreign policy appointees are all more hawkish than me. However, to be fair, it's almost impossible not to be.
I would have preferred some true America first non-interventionist paleoconservative, on the assumption that it wasn't going to be an antiwar libertarian or progressive.
reply
What do you think of the whole "peace through strength" argument?
To me that's the best case for having a mix of hawks in your administration, even if you're more of a non-interventionist yourself. You can't signal too much predictability to foreign actors, so having some credibility to your threats & posturing may help you secure more peace.
reply
I pretty fully reject the idea that we should be threatening and posturing towards other countries to achieve foreign policy objectives. I'd rather bring all the troops home and just embrace unilateral free trade.
I'm also not a utilitarian, so I'm not making any claims about outcomes. I just think that sort of behavior is immoral and I strongly suspect it's also counterproductive.
The version of peace through strength that I fully embrace is having an incredibly well-armed civilian population, such that no one would even consider invading.
reply
I'd rather bring all the troops home and just embrace unilateral free trade.
I think those are the objectives, can't do that from a position of weakness though... that said its impossible to gauge what's already been agreed to behind the scenes, we're just watching the scripted version
5GW isn't about invading armies and artillery anymore, otherwise our navy alone off the shores would have us covered. Space, cyber, info and clandestine ops are the modern battlespace and why posturing is still needed.
Smaller countries for example wouldn't need to invade if they can sneak a suitcase nuke into a football stadium, EMP half the country with a drone, or unleash a bioweapon... everything is asymmetrical now.
reply
I know that's the case people make, but I don't think interventionists have an impressive track record compared to non-interventionists.
It seems like everyone admits the non-interventionists were right eventually, but it takes decades and they never seem to change their minds about intervention in principle.
Until I see more compelling evidence, all those hypotheticals are just FUD to me.
reply
Agreed but with more optimism, the Washington/Jackson/Lincoln/JFK levels of fight against Trump is his because he's weeding them out and "draining the swamp"
He's talked explicitly about the US being looted of blood and treasure with military intervention, that is the deep states doing... they're a well-resourced enemy funded by military industrial complex, foreign heads of state, and global finance, a dangerous animal needs to be trapped carefully... slow drip more devastating than a flood etc...
Feeling much better/accelerated trajectory this go around now that the wake up op has been running for ~8 years... enjoy the show and keep the popcorn handy.
reply
I'm actually feeling more optimistic than I expected too, but it is mostly on the domestic front.
Fair enough. I don't entirely disagree with you in principle, but I think in practice I'm more willing to embrace America having a role in actively promoting peace around the world, but with a heavy, heavy dose of skepticism as to the true incentives of those who advocate for intervention.
reply
If we're going to have an interventionist role, I do prefer it be of the form where we never actually intervene, because other states stay on their best behavior.
It's like hiring a big scary dude to work security, but having him under orders not to intervene. As long as potential malfeasors don't know he won't intervene, it's an effective deterrent.
I also don't mind Vivek's strategy, which is to use the current US overreach as negotiating leverage: i.e. we'll agree to stop funding and arming Ukraine, if you negotiate a peace settlement.
reply
Did you expect someone who wasn't nominated?
reply
Expecting? Not really.
I would have preferred less hawkish appointees to the foreign policy positions and I thought there was some chance of that happening.
The two I'm most excited about that aren't on there are Thomas Massie for USDA and RFK for HHS.
reply
reply
I don't really care what signals get sent to who. The only signal I want to be perfectly clear is that attacking the US will not work out for you. Otherwise, mind your own business and we'll mind ours.
Clearly, I'm in the minority though.