Donald Trump

How Trump Endangers Global Peace

He may shy away from interventionism, but his behavior causes other problems.

|

Trump
Paco Anselmi/ZUMA Press/Newscom

To anyone weary of 15 years of inconclusive war, Donald Trump's recent foreign policy speech offered heartening words. He thinks the United States should stop pursuing regime change abroad and start fixing its own problems.

"We will stop racing to topple" foreign governments "that we know nothing about," he recently told a crowd in Fayetteville, North Carolina. "We're guided by the lessons of history and a desire to promote stability—stability all over—and strength in our land. This destructive cycle of intervention and chaos must finally, folks, come to an end."

This promise is particularly relevant to Syrian ruler Bashar Assad, whom President Barack Obama once called on to leave. It also will reassure Egyptian strongman Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, who restored an autocracy that Obama's pressure had helped bring down. Trump has no interest in toppling dictators. His goal is maintaining order.

So he says. But Trump's attention to the lessons of history goes only so far. In other places, he has heedlessly put stability at risk already. His blithe disdain for long-standing commitments and understandings invites a different destructive cycle that could make the previous chaos seem like ripples on a pond.

The first danger involves China, whose government Trump offended by taking a call from the president of Taiwan and indicating he may scrap our "one China" policy. The implication was that he may be willing to recognize Taiwan, which Beijing regards as a renegade province.

It may not sound like a big deal to him, because the Republic of China, as Taiwan calls itself, has enjoyed de facto independence since 1949. But that's where respect for the lessons of history comes in.

For a long time, the three governments have operated according to a compromise: China leaves Taiwan alone to govern itself; Taiwan doesn't declare its independence; and the United States acknowledges China's claim on the island while selling arms to Taiwan. No one loves the arrangement, but it's kept the peace.

By calling it into question, Trump challenges the Chinese government on turf that it can't give up. Were he to restore diplomatic relations with Taipei, Beijing would doubtless break ties with Washington and look for new ways to subvert our interests. Any overt move by Taiwan toward independence would provoke forceful military action by China. Are Americans ready to fight for Taiwan?

Upsetting the status quo would violate a couple of basic axioms of geopolitics. One is not to push an adversary into a corner where his only option is war. Another is not to pick a fight where the enemy's stake is much greater than yours. By ignoring these rules, the president-elect runs the risk of unleashing the very turbulence he abhors.

If his policy toward China is dangerously aggressive, his policy toward Russia is dangerously accommodating. Trump is famously enamored of President Vladimir Putin, and he has complained that our European allies are not paying enough for their own defense.

Asked in July whether he would use military force in the case of a Russian invasion of Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania—all NATO members—he hedged. "I don't want to tell you what I'd do, because I don't want Putin to know what I'd do," he said, suggesting it would depend on whether the invaded country had "fulfilled their obligations to us."

The implication was that the U.S. might stand by and let Russia seize one of its former states. Now, the original decision to include these countries in our defense alliance may have been a mistake. (I think it was.) But it's not a decision to be revisited when someone like Putin looms.

To suggest we might tolerate such aggression is to invite it. To tolerate a Russian attack on a NATO ally would expose all the others to intimidation. It would badly endanger an arrangement that, whatever its flaws, has deterred major war in Europe for more than 70 years.

To respond to a Russian invasion, though, would mean going to war with a nuclear state—with potential consequences that range from "catastrophic" to "major extinction event."

The best thing Trump could do is make clear to Putin that when it comes to our NATO commitments, nothing has changed. Stability does not thrive on uncertainty.

Our policies toward China and Russia are not beyond improvement. But at the moment, the value of preserving the status quo greatly exceeds the rewards of smashing it.

© Copyright 2016 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: 'Hey Donald Trump Please Sue Me'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I don’t even have the time to point out what nonsensical drivel this is. Being honest about Taiwan, less intervention in the Middle East, no McCarthyism over Russia, and ensuring we don’t shoulder all of NATO’s burden are all bad things “because Trump”

    Fucking Chapman.

    1. The yokel signal has been lit.

      1. *fires up the tractor*

    2. TL;DR: Can I sum it up by saying “Trump bad, Trump DANGEROUS?”

    3. I knew it was a Chapman article from the title.

  2. Trump took a phone call, and suggested that countries that want the US to live up to mutual treaties need to live up to their end of the treaties.

    He’s the Devil!

    1. It’s far more warmongering than the Lightbringer’s drone strikes amirite?

      1. Kinetic military action is not war!

  3. SC;DR

    For fucks sake Reason, lose this idiot.

    1. Second that. The voice vote below sounds like a concurrence.

      Hey Chapman, next round of your commie pandering why don’t you mention that the ROC still has conscription.

  4. This is a bit muddled, but the fault is more Trump’s than Chapman’s. First of all on Taiwan, Trump’s behavior was fine. China has a lot to lose because its people want freedom and won’t fight Taiwan even if the government orders them to attack. And for the most part they like the US and won’t fight us. The irony is that Trump is trying to incite chaos but he’s only succeeding in doing the opposite. The same dynamic in Cuba, which Obama cleverly baited him into attacking Castro for oppressing his people and denying freedom. It’s actually pretty funny how dumb he was. He should have kept his mouth shut.

    As for Europe, they have been getting away with not paying their fair share, so I’ll give Trump the benefit of the doubt on that one too. However, it points to a larger issue, which is his love for Putin, and so you get a point for that. Yes Trump and Putin want to instigate violence and strife in the middle east and north africa to create a pretext to nuke them so he can suppress oil production and raise oil prices in US and Russia. If you didn’t know this, it’s because you weren’t listening.

    “Bomb the hell out of them!”
    “I will end ISIS quickly!”
    “Nation building is a disaster!”

    So yes Trump is a threat to global peace like none other. Yet at the same time he’s his own worst enemy.

    1. China has a lot to lose because its people want freedom and won’t fight Taiwan even if the government orders them to attack. And for the most part they like the US and won’t fight us.

      The stupid, it burns!

      1. No kidding! Somehow this notion that being a no account hippie translates into totalitarian nations.

    2. However, it points to a larger issue, which is his love for Putin

      Rumor has it he’s gonna go full medieval, (SSM) marry Putin and thereby unite the US and Russia.

      1. For the genuine medieval feeling, they should marry off their children to each other. Putin’s got daughters and Trump’s got sons, so they can keep it traditional.

        1. dajjal loves STEVE SMITH. And goats.

  5. We need to cover MORE of Europe’s defense costs and accommodate the Red Chinese more. Also, did you hear Trump criticized that fine fighter plane, the F-35? You’re dead on Chapman-It’s really a shame Hillary Clinton, the peace candidate, didn’t manage to pull it off.

    1. Chapman’s a quasi-progressive malcontent. I don’t even remember a time when he was credible.

      1. “Quasi”? That’s being too kind, I think.

      2. Nothing quasi about it.

        1. Not even Quasi-modo?

      3. Chapman must give one hell of a blowjob. I can’t imagine another reason Nick would publish his garbage.

  6. Reason, trading credibility for clicks since, wait, how long’s Chapman been here?

    1. I’m all for opposing viewpoints, provided they’re coherent and at least somewhat logical. Still waiting on that from Chapman. If I want shills there are plenty of other outlets.

      1. When Cato put Chapman on “Byline” (“from liberal, conservative, and libertarian perspectives”), it was because Fairness Doctrine, so to the extent his opposing viewpoint sounded stupid, so much the better. But then they had to go put on Julian Bond, because the overall libertarian slant of these radio commentaries was still evident & drew a complaint.

      2. I disagree. I think Chapman is totally coherent and has a certain logic about him (as much as most liberals do). He just happens to be wrong.

        A lot.

        1. There’s logic, there’s lies, and then there is stupidity. There is no “certain” type of logic.

          He is either a liar, or stupid. I vote stupid.

          Like others have said, I’m fine with other view points, but this guy is god damned clown, and so ridiculously inept that probably 80% of us don’t even read his articles.

        2. He’s kind of like our resident pinata I guess.

          1. As bitches go, he’s the belle of the ball.

  7. So… Hows that fundraiser going ?

  8. Didn’t read the article; knew it was Chapman from the headline.

  9. This is a perfunctory column, much below Steve’s average. Trump’s Russia “policy” doesn’t disturb me (much) because I think it’s very unlikely that Putin is going to do something seriously aggressive. His actions in Ukraine were a response to the total destabilization of that country, for which the “West” bore some responsibility. Russia is surrounded by countries more powerful than itself–Germany, China, and Japan. Despite all his fuss and fury, Putin isn’t going anywhere. (Like Trump himself, one hopes).

    Steve omits entirely the worst part of Trump’s “policy”, his choice of Gens. Mattis and Flynn for SecDef and national security advisor, two men clearly planning a new Cold War for the Middle East, with Iran replacing Iraq as the new “worst since Hitler”. “We need a war,” said Lynne Cheney. The Republicans still do, and Iran is the new Soviet Bloc.

    1. Is today idiot Thursday?

    2. For a “cold” war, it’s awfully hot already.

      1. Did you check the AC compressor? It may need to be replaced.

  10. Or maybe Trump is pointing out to China (the big communist one) that there are existing islands (the little democratic China) they need to consider while they are busy building new islands in the pacific in order to foment trouble. The current US policy in the pacific is going to need serious revision everywhere, including the two Chinas. Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, etc.
    (How wonderful would it be to lease back “our” naval base at Cam Ran Bay to supplement/replace Subic Bay ?)
    Saying a few nice things about Putin’s leadership style is not the same as saying Russia is a great place.

  11. Fire Steve Chapman.

    I’m no Trump fan, but Chapman is a hysterical wise ass with the intellectual depth of Miley Cyrus (a fellow Clinton supporter). If you want to hire a Chicago Tribune columnist pick John Kass or even Steve Brown, who, while a Leftist, maintains a level of intellectual curiosity.

  12. lulz. I could tell it was Chapman just from the title.

  13. I actually expected Dalmia for some reason, but it’s about the same sort of pants-shitting.

    1. If we’re talking power rankings, Shikha’s been a lot better last couple’a columns. Chapman’s got the bottom spot all to himself, with Suderman a strong second-to-last.

      1. Can’t the board just organize a staffing swap and vive Suderman’s spot to McArdle?

      2. Shikha’s significantly improved, but that is largely because her previous columns were so terrible. You can’t sink lower than claiming Jews are part of an alt-right coalition.

      3. She has been, so I figured she was due to backslide. I thought they had her on best behavior for their webathon, but they did publish more hysterical Chapman articles while it was going on. I’m thinking at this point either Chapman pays Reason to publish him or he has compromising photo/video of the chief editors.

        1. Other than dead children/live pets what sort of photos would compromise this editorial board?

      4. What’s Sheldon Richman, chopped liver?

    2. She was my alternate choice too. Both of them are complete retards.

  14. “If we elect Donald Trump, we’ll be fighting wars all over the globe!”

    Steve Chapman, folks; here to make NYT commenters look sane and sophisticated.

  15. I’m all for opposing viewpoints, provided they’re coherent and at least somewhat logical.

    This.

  16. Stability does not thrive on uncertainty.

    Now, *that* is an insight!

  17. He may shy away from interventionism, but his behavior causes other problems.

    So far, all it’s seem to done is expose proggies as the slavers we all knew they were.

    Fuck off.

    1. Exactly.

  18. Realpolitik as a libertarian virtue. Whoodathunkit?

    More generally, people overlook that Trump the Dealmaker rarely if ever holds himself to deals that turn out wrong. Any deal he regrets, he simply bankruptcies himself out of … and then brags about it.

    Perhaps he simply doesn’t understand that treaties, including the NATO treaty, aren’t voidable in bankruptcy court like a real estate deal gone sour.

    1. All treaties are voidable by either party. And Trump isn’t saying we should walk away from NATO. He is saying Europe needs to rearm and help defend itself if it wants our help. I don’t see how that is unreasonable. If Europe is unwilling to defend itself, it is likely not worthy of our defending it. More importantly, if there is one lessen that should be learned from Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan it is that you cannot defend people who don’t want to defend themselves no matter how hard you try.

      1. Even major European nations no longer possess any meaningful military capabilities. They must restore their armies, navies, and aerial forces to competency. It isn’t the responsibility of the United States to defend them.

        1. I agree. I am okay with assisting them. But we have no business defending them if they lack the will to defend themselves. American taxpayers should not be paying taxes and American soldiers should not be dying so that Europe can enjoy a universal welfare state because it doesn’t have to pay to defend itself.

        2. The U.K. proved that it still had some fight in it in the Falklands War, but that was a few decades ago. And the Argentinians made a lot of mistakes. Western Europe is saved only by the fact that most its enemies are even dumber and weaker than they are.

          1. The UK still have some fight, but their logistical reach was stretched to breaking point back in the early 80’s, and it’s reach is diminished now. Even with the best will in the world, they couldn’t regain it for a couple of years – they have a brand new aircraft carrier, but nothing to launch from it.

            And they’re probably the strongest indigenous military presence in Western Europe.

            Sad!

          2. The UK cut their military budget afterwards, and in many ways the logistical problems during the Falklands invasion showed how far they had slipped. It was the last swan song of the British Empire, and it didn’t make them look good.

            1. It amazes me a bit that a country which maintained a massive, worldwide empire in the age of sail can have logistical problems doing the same on a much smaller scale in the age of digital computers, but here we are.

              1. I’m sure Charlemagne said something similar about the Romans

              2. You can visit the old colonial offices in London, and be amazed that a global empire was managed from the equivalent of a small modern office space.

                1. I read *somewhere* (sadly, no citation possible) that in the 1920s, the whole of Britain’s East African colonial interests were run by a dozen people in London, including secretarial personnel.

                  The key, I suppose, was that the Colonial Officers ‘In Country’ were pretty much absolute autarchs.

              3. *It amazes me a bit that a country which maintained a massive, worldwide empire in the age of sail *

                Bankrupting the Exchequer and sacrificing their finest in Flanders for 4 years finished them off. It just took 50 years for the corpse to tip over.

          3. I had a conversation with a retired general who came up in the Cold War a few years ago. He said during the 1980s there were six countries in Europe that had a real military that could have fought alongside us against the Soviets and been real assets; Norway, West Germany, The Netherlands, UK, France and Italy. He said by the time he retired in the late 1990s, not a single one of them could provide any real assistance to the US in a fight. They no longer had the numbers and they had allowed their technology, training and doctrine to fall so far that they would have been worse than useless to us on the battlefield. He said even the UK was like that, though better than the others.

            1. The fall of the Soviet Union was, on net, a boon for world peace, but people act like symmetric warfare died with it, even though there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, and all it really takes is a moderately sized group of people with the knowledge and will to fight to bring an end to the peace.

              1. It was a great thing. But it also brought back the era of great powers. As lousy as the Cold War was, it did produce a bipolar world where pretty much everything that happened was the result of the struggle between the US and USSR. The old world of great powers having spheres of influence didn’t exist anymore. The end of the Cold War brought that back. Russia is not a super power bent on global domination anymore. Neither is China. What they are and the US is are great powers who are acting in their best interests and looking to dominate their spheres of influence. And that changes things. First, it makes symmetric wars between great powers possible again. Second, it means that not every regional crisis has world wide implications. During the Cold War, the Soviets overrunning a country had world wide implications because it was part of a larger plan to overrun the world. Today, Russia trying to roll Ukraine or Georgia has implications for that region but no the world. Our foreign policy establishment can’t get that through their heads and try to make every regional crisis into a world one.

                1. An interesting question might be, can the U.S. adapt to again being just one of many great powers, rather than the sole superpower (which we still are, but may not be in a decade or two)?

                  1. We don’t want to be the single Super Power. It will just make us hated and resented and get us into wars and entanglements that are not in our interests.

                    1. It will?

                      Dear God, we really need to make sure that never happens, don’t we.

                    2. We want to be feared and respected

                    3. It is better to be feared than respected, if you cannot be both.

                      +1 Nic

              2. America has the luxury of seeing almost all military conflicts as ‘away matches’, and has constructed its military as an extension of logistics. Furthermore, before nuclear proliferation, conventional warfare for the US wasn’t focused on homeland defense. Troops could be dispersed thru’out the continent to be deployed at need at a somewhat leisurely manner.

                In the case of Europe, the slightest threat of aggression from a neighbor required rapid deployment of defensive personnel right up on the national border. That’s an expensive proposition, and after WW2 with all their economies destroyed, the temptation to defend ‘on the cheap’ to divert revenue elsewhere was tantalizing. As the 60’s and 70’s rolled thru’, it was easy to cede military bases to the well-financed US military in exchange for technology. Orwell didn’t have to be very inventive to come up with the idea of “Airstrip One”.

                Finally, when the wall came down, Europe didn’t have threat of 3 or 4 Russian armored divisions rolling thru’ the Fulda Gap armed with battlefield nukes. Combining that with the EU, who was a country like France going to fight? (well, other than maybe Morocco or Algeria).

                Countries that recognized they’d have to get involved in ‘bush wars’, recognized that having conventional field armies and naval battle groups would be inadequate, so they cut them. And they liked the kind of money they saved, and once they cut their military, what happened? NOTHING HAPPENED! So they kept on cutting.

                1. The only thing that has kept the UK, French and to a lesser degree, Dutch and German militaries as strong as they are, has been the fact that their special forces cadres, and the units that are needed to support them, have been maintained *because* they’re pretty good at this asymmetric warfare stuff.

                  As for building anything approaching a military capable of prosecuting a conventional or semi-conventional war, they should be sending teams of general staffers to learn from the Japanese.

                2. Who would want to invade us when we have so many guns we am grass? Not going to claim grass is a world class marksmen but volume has a quality all it’s own.

        3. If they do not, we should make them pay tribute.

      2. It’s fucking hilarious to me that liberals can bitch about our military spending out of one side of their mouth and then bitch about Trump saying the other NATO members need to start putting up their share of military expenditures.

        Hmmm, I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that if those member countries actually started spending for their own defense, they wouldn’t be able to keep all those awesome socialist programs the liberals love so much?

      3. “Trump isn’t saying we should walk away from NATO.”

        Indeed. Hell, if he had been saying that I may have seriously considered voting for him before marking Johnson down on my ballot.

      4. …you cannot defend people who don’t want to defend themselves no matter how hard you try.

        Indeed. Even my relatives in Europe (France and the Netherlands) haven’t ever initimated to me that the EU shouldn’t be paying for more of its own defense and mutual aid ? they’ve merely noted that, up until now, the U.S. has been happy to provide what is essentially a subsidy of the EU’s social programs and EU politicians have been happy to take it.

        Trump’s position is not an unreasonable one. I suspect that part of the problem is that the pearl-clutchers simply can’t envision a state of events that are different from what exists at present, and believe any change whatsoever is fraught with danger.

        Seriously?

        1. Deep down, I think, Europeans are still very much afraid of themselves. Their is an unspoken (sometimes spoken) fear that, if Europe’s nations remilitarize, they will return to the ‘old days’ of regular wars between nationalist regimes.

          Western Europe seems to be clinging to the idea that they are living in ‘post-history.’ The rest of the world of course disagrees.

    2. Well it could be argued that “getting out of bankruptcies” is a skill we may need soon in a President.

    3. Apart from insisting that it’s Congress’ responsibility to declare war, there is no libertarian foreign policy per se.

      There are libertarian justifications for ignoring Pinochet, toppling Pinochet, and supporting Pinochet.

      We made mistakes during the Cold War, but we won it the way we did because of what I think you’re calling Realpolitik, too.

      Maybe you don’t realize that everything is negotiable, and out current interests are what they are even if they aren’t being optimized by our current treaty obligations.

      P.S. Did you know that NATO guidelines say that NATO member countries are supposed to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense? Of 28 member countries, only five are doing so.

      http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/0…..countries/

      Germany and Canada are paying about half of what they’re supposed to–and why chip in your fair share when no one will complain about you not paying?

      . . . since NATO is a treaty and the United States is obligated to live by its treaty responsibilities.

      1. Every other government party to NATO knows America will handle any global war, and that they don’t need to do shit. They’re arrogant and complacent.

        1. And to make them pay their fair share, we’d need some leverage.

          Germany, you have the money to bail out Greece and become a sanctuary for asylum seekers, but not enough to meet your treaty obligations to NATO?

          Okay, well, if that’s your attitude, let’s negotiate.

          Poland, Estonia, and Greece pay their fair share–and that’s probably related to them having the biggest concerns about being overrun by their enemies. That’s a lot of leverage against them free riding.

          23 other members will continue to free ride so long as we never create any leverage to make them pay.

          1. If I were Trump (heh), I’d simply state that any shortfall in other member states’ contributions would be matched by the U.S.; if (say) Canada (my Home and Native Land) will only spend 1% of GDP, and the extra 1%’s worth, oh, say $20 Billion, I’d deduct that amount (converted into USD, of course) from the amount owing to NATO for current operations.

            Every year, I’d make a point of “violating” the treaty obligations by the approximate amount others were already violating them, and then dare the other members to put up or shut up.

    4. Of course, NATO was meant to be a mutual defense pact and not “the U.S. will protect everybody” which is what it has become. The other members of NATO (with certain exclusions, like Poland) should not have let their military forces atrophy as much as they have, and the U.S. should not be expected to pick up the slack.

    5. “Perhaps he simply doesn’t understand that treaties, including the NATO treaty, aren’t voidable…”

      Where did you get this idea? I musta missed that in my history lessons. Alliances and treaties have been broken many times in history. Never mind world history, just observe Europe leading up to the Treaty of Westphalia and after.

    6. Trump has had a handful of bankruptcies over the last forty years or so. Out of what, maybe a thousand business deals? So you’re criticizing the guy for having a 99+% success rate? By the way, those bankruptcies were reorganization plans. He didn’t just walk away.

      Bankruptcy is also a commonly used tool in business when a company acquires another failing company it intends to turn around into a success. Using the bankruptcy laws to renegotiate the terms of the company’s debt. It’s not like when AmSoc walked away from his mortgage.

  19. What global peace, you retarded beta male gobshite?

  20. “For a long time, the three governments have operated according to a compromise: China leaves Taiwan alone to govern itself; Taiwan doesn’t declare its independence; and the United States acknowledges China’s claim on the island while selling arms to Taiwan. No one loves the arrangement, but it’s kept the peace.

    By calling it into question, Trump challenges the Chinese government on turf that it can’t give up. Were he to restore diplomatic relations with Taipei, Beijing would doubtless break ties with Washington and look for new ways to subvert our interests.”

    Negotiations are won with leverage. Even winning a lawsuit is just a means to gaining more leverage in a negotiation. The leverage we have with Beijing is insufficient to get the things we want from China. We want them to stop expanding beyond their borders in the South China Sea. We want them to clamp down on North Korea for their missile and nuclear programs.

    Taiwan and North Korea have long been counterweights in our ongoing negotiations with China. The less support we give to Taipei, the more China is supposed to crack down on North Korea. China has been neglecting its responsibilities in that arrangement. If Trump created leverage on an issue “the Chinese can’t give up”, that just means the negotiation is now slanted more in our favor than it was under Obama’s non-leveraged policy of total capitulation.

    1. You read things like this and it makes you want to start a high stakes poker game with the Washington Press corps. These people are aspy morons. They have no idea how to negotiate anything or how actual conflicts and relations between nations work.

      China isn’t going to start World War III over Trump taking that phone call. And Trump taking the phone call is not evidence that Trump intends to start World War III. Trump taking the phone call was Trump telling the Chinese that they are not going to dictate our foreign policy and if they want to play local bad boy and try to bully Japan and South Korea, there will be consequences. Peace through strength is not just a slogan. Weakness and miscalculation is what generally cause wars.

      And it is funny how Reason is so convinced Trump is a crazy war monger yet the only thing they have as evidence is Trump taking a phone call. I guess being a war monger isn’t what it used to be.

      1. “And it is funny how Reason is so convinced Trump is a crazy war monger yet the only thing they have as evidence is Trump taking a phone call.”

        Over the course of the Obama Administration, especially, the press has become obsessed with reporting on press releases, speeches, and posturing. Hence, why they go DefCon 1 over things that Trump tweets.

        They need to go back and take a class on Plato’s Republic and Machiavelli’s Prince. This stuff is really fundamental. The proper place of the press is not to urge inaction–and that sure as hell isn’t the right place for the libertarian press.

        Meanwhile, total capitulation to Beijing is not the path to peace. The reason countries like Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, et .al. have been as peaceful as they have been in the face of aggression is because they have faith in America as their protector. Convince them that America will only capitulate to China, and we’ll see a couple of things happen. For one, we’ll see countries like the Philippines move out of our orbit and into China’s orbit (which has been happening because Duerte’s relationship with Obama), and, secondly, we’ll see countries like Japan become more bellicose.

        Just because we capitulate to China doesn’t mean our allies will.

        P.S. You could say the same thing about Obama’s relationship with Iran. Capitulation on Iran’s nuclear and missile programs was not the path to peace.

        Just because we capiti

        1. Capitulation is never the path to peace. You would think that Libertarians, who in other contexts understand that there can never be enough free money or other people’s money, would understand that. Capitulation emboldens other nations in the same way handing out free money encourages more of the behavior you are rewarding.

          1. In those specific circumstances capitulation is losing the negotiation, and Obama capitulated to everyone.

            He capitulated to Assad, Putin, China, Iran.

            Obama fought for capitulation, willingly paid the political price for capitulation, he championed and defended capitulation.

            Never having drawn a red line on Assad was probably the right move–empty threats weaken our position.

            But in the other cases, Obama’s capitulation was more like an ideologically rigid virtue. I remember Reason writers being especially keen on our capitulation to Iran. Their ideas about what makes the world peaceful is probably colored by our experience in Iraq. But there are other options than just American led invasions or total capitulation. Iran was broke–they’d burned through all their foreign currency reserves. They were desperate. That was not the time to let them off the hook.

            And mutual assured destruction does not create a peaceful world. The Cold War was an era of bloody conventional wars. It doesn’t lead to peace–it makes conventional wars through proxies a virtual certainty.

            1. Yes. Obama has made a point of capitulating at every opportunity. And this unsurprisingly has embolden our adversaries and made the world much more dangerous and less stable.

              1. “Obama has made a point of capitulating at every opportunity.”
                I wouldn’t say that. He didn’t capitulate to Assad or Gaddafi. I would more say that Obama’s approach has been to walk up to a few of the weaker looking guys in the bar, throw one punch at each of them, then walk away and have a drink and imagine that he’s demonstrated strength. Of course he didn’t consider that one of those weaker guys might have a strong buddy with him named Vlad.

                He would have saved everyone a lot of trouble (and in a way even appeared stronger definitely more principled) and even maybe earned that Nobel Peace Prize if he had simply played Ghandi, committed to non-intervention, and not gotten involved.

              2. To such a degree that one must wonder if that was by design.

    2. I think it’s delusional to imagine that Trump is the master negotiator that he imagines himself to be (not saying you think that, but that some people take to defending him by appealing to his ‘art of dealmaking’)…

      That said, even if the timing is entirely coincidental, China’s recent actions have more than warranted some kind of response like this to alert China of the fact that we’re, like, still here. Especially China’s cozying up to Duterte and possibly trying to poach an erstwhile American ally in the region.

      Again, if one were to impute a strategy to Trump’s behavior, it could be argued that giving Taiwan a nod is a way of telling China they can’t expect to do things like that with impunity. Again, I don’t think Trump was being strategic. But he may have actually done something clever entirely by accident.

  21. How Trump Endangers Global Peace

    Huh?

    Steve Chapman

    Oh…

    Perhaps Chapman prefers Team Blue’s current policy of agitating war with major world powers.

  22. China’s Taiwan policy boils down to saying, play our propaganda game by our rules or else we will invade this kitten.

    Fuck everyone who thinks go along with this kind of shit is the “prudent” thing to do.

  23. It also will reassure Egyptian strongman Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, who restored an autocracy that Obama’s pressure had helped bring down owes his success to Obama’s abandonment of a long-time American ally and subsequent unrequited love affair with a budding Islamic theocracy.

    I mean, I’d love to think that was the worst Chapman quote, but pretty much everything he says can be boiled down to, “I think anything Trump does is a mistake because Trump’s doing it, even if it aligns with something I agree with or recommend in another instance.” It’s so blatantly obvious that in Chapman’s eyes Trump can’t do anything right that it overpowers whatever admittedly poor arguments he makes.

    Oh, and, a “threat to global peace”? Seriously? You mean like fomenting civil wars in the Middle East? Or telling China that we’re going to “pivot” to Asia and telegraphing a military build-up in the region, specifically in the South China sea?

    1. I find the idea that the US has some duty to intervene in foreign conflicts for humanitarian reasons to be a pretty big threat to peace. Conflicts have a way of escalating you know. And our interventions never seem to do very much for the humanitarian crisis anyway. Yet, Chapman thinks Hillary, a woman who based her career as DOS on that proposition would not have been a threat to peace and stability.

      1. That’s what kills me about these yahoos. Ok, so Trump is a dangerous madman with his finger on the nuclear trigger? Sure, why not. I guess there was some sort of vast Trumpian conspiracy to make sure that when the Chapmans of the world were expressing their reservations about electing a person as president who referred to the debacle in Libya as “smart power” and apparently believes that the problem with our involvement in the Syrian civil war isn’t our lack of adequate intelligence or even the fact that we’re arming both sides, to include ISIS, but that we haven’t played chicken with the Russians over air space and aren’t sending in enough “advisors”, those concerns never saw the light of day?

  24. Hey Reason, are you guys gonna be shitting your pants continuously for the next eight years?

    1. Hot stock tip. Buy stock in companies that market adult diapers. Sales are going to go through the roof while Trump is in office!

  25. I was cutting through your fields today
    and the winds of my wingings slapped
    against the strings falling from your quivering
    stems and the knuckles in my heart

    were so fucking rusty from not being
    able to see through the thin stars
    which is why i pour sounds into my
    goddamn head. so i can escape you

    and your fucking fields throbbing with
    earthen chuckles and heady tosses
    fuck you. you fucking lost self
    you fucking fuck

    the dark is misty up here
    and only the owls know this
    because their tears float

  26. Responding with acts of appeasement to the overtly aggressive adventures of an objectively malignant power, as progressives and other apologists for totalitarian iniquity oft encourage the United States to do, would be the height of stupidity. Geopolitical jockeying is a game whose viability ends at abject aggression, at which point there can be no acquiescence to the demands of malevolent actors.

    Red China is a plainly degenerate, nefarious government. The tiresome delusions of pacifists and other assorted imbeciles notwithstanding, unyielding resistance to the expansionistic endeavors of Red China are always a praiseworthy goal.

    1. China is going to do whatever it sees as being in its interests to do and that they think they can get away with. Appeasing them doesn’t change their behavior. It just emboldens them. The problem with appeasement is that there is a point were even a chump like Obama really will go to war. If we ever get into a war with China it will be because China miscalculates and does something it thinks it can get away with but in reality crosses a line that the US will not ignore. The way to avoid that happening is to let China know that such a line exists. You don’t draw read lines and write checks that you will have to cash. All that does is make every crisis into a crisis of your credibility. Ambiguity is your friend in these situations. You want China to know that there is a line but not know precisely where it is. That way they are deterred from being aggressive for fear of crossing the line and you get peace.

      1. The prospect of an actual war with the United States would instantly and completely provoke a submissive retreat in the Chinese government. They stand not a snowball’s chance in Hell in an outright war with us, and they know it. Appeasement is catastrophe, and retarded beyond measure.

        1. In most cases yes. But we also need to be careful. The thing most people never understand about countries like China is that the leaders are more afraid of their own people than they are of us. The leadership in China doesn’t wake up every morning and worry about what the US is going to do to them. They worry about their own people rising against them and it ending with them on the end of a rope. China has increasingly used national pride to keep its population in line and get it to ignore how fucked up and corrupt the government and economy are.If the US totally humiliated China, its leadership very well might choose war because the alternative would be certain death at the hands of their own people. It would take a lot to do that, but it could happen.

          Overall though, you are right. China is going to bully us all it can. But once it realizes we have had enough and are going to stand up, it will knock it off.

          1. Which shows just what a weak little pussy Obama really is. We’re America. NO country should EVER be able to bully us. Like the Incredible Hulk, we are the strongest one there is. It takes , a Jimmy Carter or a Barack Obama to allow this kind of shit.

        2. Even the Japanese didn’t think they could actually win a war against the U.S. when they attacked Pearl Harbor. But they hoped they could knock the U.S. out of the war, directly by destroying our warships and indirectly by destroying the country’s morale and will to fight. They missed on both marks, of course; we lost our battleships but not our carriers, and we were emboldened to fight rather than cowed by the attack.

          The point being, that the peace isn’t always kept by “it would be damn foolish of us to attack them” alone.

          1. The odd thing, of course is that having a couple of hawks like Mattis and Flynn in SecDef and NS doesn’t commit Trump to anything. What it does tell me is that Trump understands the power of uncertainty and its ability to instill fear in others (whether allies, rivals, frenemies or anyone else).

            We might come to regret those choices in the future, but at the moment, all Trump is doing is sending a message.

          2. The Japanese in 1941 is a good example of internal politics driving a country to war. Once Roosevelt cut off Japanese oil, they faced the prospect of no longer being able to sustain their war effort in China and ultimate defeat. Losing the war to China would have meant the end of the regime. So having nothing to lose, they gambled on a quick war with the US.

        3. Every country in Europe thought going into WW1 that the war would be over in its favor in months.

          Don’t overestimate the ability of statesmen to accurately and dispassionately assess their own strength and that of their enemies.

  27. Trump took a phone call. That’s all he’s done, so far. The man hasn’t t even technically been elected, yet.
    So come on, Stevie boy, calm down and wait for him to actually do something stupid before going. I’m sure we won’t have to wait long.
    I know that’s a difficult criticism; my niggles are hard.

  28. Here’s hoping Chapman one day finally achieves his decade long dream of sucking Obama’s chocolate popsicle and finally achieves happiness.

    1. Like this?

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0q0LuS_gpj4

      I figure Crusty and Warty should both enjoy that.

  29. Of course, China has shown zero aggression towards its neighbours regardless of U.S. policy. If only we appeased Communist dictatorships that harvest the organs of political dissidents and spit in the faces of democratic Westernized states more, that would solve our problems!

    Since he’s chosen to be so blatantly dishonest, I will follow suit: Steve Chapman is in the pocket of the PRC. Provide me wrong.

    1. Also Chapman, you’re a scumbag hypocrite. The candidate you supported saber-rattled and invited open conflict with Russia. You don’t get to talk about how Clinton is the superior choice and then bemoan Trump was a threat to global peace, you profoundly dumb bastard.

      1. And the candidate who is now accusing Russia of committing an act of war by intervening in our Presidential election without any evidence it is true. Don’t forget that.

  30. Jesus fuckity fuck Reason. Stop publishing this idiot. Really, just stop it.

    Do you have any idea how many people didn’t give in your fundraiser just to keep their dollars from going to Chapman?

    1. If we wanted progressive claptrap, we’d read the NYT.

    2. Chapman, Richman, Dalmia…

    3. Richman, Chapman, and Shikha are fundraising Kryptonite.

      1. That’s part of the reason I didn’t give this year, that’s for sure.

    4. Dalmia
      Chapman
      Richman

      I will not contribute money to any outfit that gives even a single penny to any of these ignoramuses.

  31. Trump is famously enamored of President Vladimir Putin, and he has complained that our European allies are not paying enough for their own defense.

    Oh my goodness. He told the Europeans they need to actually contribute to their own defense? How dangerous!

    To tolerate a Russian attack on a NATO ally would expose all the others to intimidation. It would badly endanger an arrangement that, whatever its flaws, has deterred major war in Europe for more than 70 years.

    Then disband NATO and build a new system of of European alliances that reflect modern reality. The enemy NATO was supposed to defend against is gone and now all it does is bind us to the defense of countries like Turkey at the cost of our own security. I’ll be god damned if my children get drafted to fight a war to “defend” the Turkish regime.

    1. and he has complained that our European allies are not paying enough for their own defense.

      Didn’t Ron Paul spend his entire 2012 Presidential campaign claiming exactly that?

      1. Chapman preferred Obama to Ron Paul even then. Chapman should be writing for Vox, Slate or the NYT. It absolutely baffles me that Reason continues to publish him year after year. It makes me question the editorial staff’s motivations.

        1. I think those questions have been answered for some time.

        2. Cocktail parties have costs. Reason is good at selling out principle and really good at talking a big game and then folding when pressed by their liberal peers.

  32. Washington Consensus

    War with China= Bad

    War with Russia= Good

    Easing tensions with Russia to separate them from China= Putin hacked the elections

    1. Yeah, it’s about partisanship, which is shameful.

    2. To be fair, Donald’s feelings for Putin are pretty creepy, but if the end result is some kind of detente with Russia (assuming they don’t blow it by invading another country) it may well be a productive thing.

      My suspicion is Trump may well end up being the Forrest Gump of presidents: he will accidentally stumble into good results often enough that he may not be such a disaster, and may even prove to be less dangerous than his predecessor when all is said and done.

  33. The idiocy of this article is encapsulated in the title.

    WHAT ‘Global Peace”?!?!??!?!??!?!?

  34. more hyper ventilation about imagined problems

  35. This is about the most incoherent Chapman I can recall. I’ve recalled dumbth & special pleading in his pieces, & this one has that aplenty, but never so much incoherence as this one.

  36. For a long time, the three governments have operated according to a compromise: China leaves Taiwan alone to govern itself; Taiwan doesn’t declare its independence; and the United States acknowledges China’s claim on the island while selling arms to Taiwan. No one loves the arrangement, but it’s kept the peace.

    By calling it into question, Trump challenges the Chinese government on turf that it can’t give up. Were he to restore diplomatic relations with Taipei, Beijing would doubtless break ties with Washington and look for new ways to subvert our interests. Any overt move by Taiwan toward independence would provoke forceful military action by China. Are Americans ready to fight for Taiwan?

    Upsetting the status quo would violate a couple of basic axioms of geopolitics. One is not to push an adversary into a corner where his only option is war.

    And if China doesn’t like official recognition of Taiwan by the USA, China must go to war! It’s their only option, after all.

    1. Remember, Chinese people are minorities and therefore lacking in agency; oppression and white privilege loom over them, so if they react violently to a perceived mild breach of etiquette, it is entirely our fault.

      1. So all we need do is concentrate our White Powers against China and they will collapse before us?

  37. Were he to restore diplomatic relations with Taipei, Beijing would doubtless break ties with Washington

    Bullshit. No way does China close its embassy in DC and kick out our diplomats. No. Way. The ChiComs are not going to war because the de facto status quo doesn’t change. And the de facto status quo is independent Taiwan armed by the US. That won’t change, no matter whose phone calls we take.

    and look for new ways to subvert our interests.

    Yeah, this would be whole new departure for the ChiComs.

    1. They might be the next ones to hack our elections and get chelsea elected. I think I just made chapman cream his shorts.

    2. I’ve lived in mainland China for a few years, and I wouldn’t put it past them to actually cut off diplomatic relations over this. I’ve been to a couple of talks on the South China Sea (in Chinese, given by a communist) and the thing is that they really just don’t understand American motivations and psychology. It’s actually a little scary. Part of it is cultural differences, part of it is the fact that you just can’t question the official communist line.

      Any rate, the only people I really feel bad for are the Taiwanese, they actually just want freedom, and in that regard are our friends.

  38. One is not to push an adversary into a corner where his only option is war.

    There is another option, it’s right on the tip of my tongue. What was it? What was it?

    Oh yeah, recognize a free people and leave them the fuck alone.

  39. “The first danger involves China, whose government Trump offended by taking a call from the president of Taiwan and indicating he may scrap our ‘one China’ policy. ”

    BREAKING NEWS!!

    Taiwan is a country that exists!!

    We know this is true!!

    China KNOWS we know it is true!!

    What harm is there in stopping us pretending that Taiwan doesn’t exist (which is OBJECTIVELY not true)??

    ESPECIALLY because we ALREADY trade with Taiwan, and GIVE TAIWAN WEAPONS. If China hasn’t cared about us ACTING like Taiwan is a separate nation (and giving them MILITARY ASSISTANCE) then I have a HARD TIME believing that China will suddenly care that we begin saying Taiwan is a separate nation.

    Seriously, any country that would flip its shit and declare Nuclear War over acknowledging that a country that exists, EXISTS, would have declared war LONG AGO after we gave Taiwan weapons!!

  40. “Steve Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune.”

    Steve Chapman is a hack who should never see print anywhere. Whiny college frosh Poly Sci ‘students’ do better than this.
    If Reason doesn’t have a decent foreign policy writer available, then please don’t post anything; this is embarrassing.

  41. Has Reason been Hijacked??? The name of the site is Reason, not Proggie Nutbag Reasons for hat’in on Trump. We know, we know, the Trumpocalypse is coming and won’t we all be sorry, so sorry!

    1. At which time I will drive my Trumpmobile off a cliff.

  42. I’m noticing that nobody in the press is bothering to try to understand Trump at all. Not even in the darkest corners of the national media, like Reason.

    I’m going to make an assumption. Let’s assume that Trump didn’t win the presidency by accident. Let’s make the assumption that all of the stuff he was doing that we all thought made no sense was actually an intentional act, designed to win the votes of the people. Any other assumption is kind of absurd at this point.

    So all of his terse platitudes and 3rd grader declarations are an intentional act designed to elicit a response, and not the one that you think he’s trying to get. And it works.

    So he takes a call from Taiwan. And he’s been calling for negotiations on trade with China.

    Accident? Buffoonery? Or is this positioning for a later negotiation. Is he setting them up for “the deal of a lifetime” where China thinks they took advantage of Trump and Trump gets exactly what he wants.

    Because that would be much more consistent with the results Trump seems to be getting than your theories that he’s a loose cannon on the world stage about to unintentionally start world war III.

    All this Putin talk…. what effect is it having in Russia? Is he possibly gaining access? Maybe he’s going to be able to broker a deal that Clinton couldn’t?

    He has a pattern of playing into “smart people’s” stereotypes of him as a lightweight. And then he somehow manages to get what he wants.

    1. I’ve been calling Trump a buffoon for at least 20 years. I have never understood why anyone would consider him to be smart, or why anyone would want to get into business with him.

      But the last 18 months have proven that I’m wrong. I’m not sure where, or how… but he’s clearly not just Chance Gardner who bumbled his way to the White House. He played people with his act. And he got what he wanted. I would have bet you half of my net worth that absolutely nobody would vote for him in the Republican primary. Heck, I still can’t believe it.

      But at a certain point you have to look at the data. And in this case the data says that Trump is not the character we think he is. Because the person I think he is couldn’t have pulled this off, not with twice the cash of Clinton, much less with less than half the resources. And he couldn’t put together a transition team so quickly.

      So clearly I”m wrong. And so are you. If you keep trying to analyze Trump as if you know what you are talking about and he’s a doofus you are going to keep being wrong. I can’t tell you exactly what he’s doing, but I can see the results. He manages to win arguments that other people didn’t think he was even at the table for. So he must have some idea of what he is doing.

      The whole flag burning thing should clue you in. It was absurd and out of left field. But everyone went running after it like a dog with a bone. He’s playing you.

      1. I’ve reached the same conclusions and I would point out that he got elected by promising to “drain the swamp”. Not just the Washington swamp but the world swamp wherever America has an interest. He set up the GOP and knocked em down. He set up the media and knocked em down. He set up HRC and knocked her down.
        He’s now in the process of setting up foreign leaders, regulators, and anyone else he can affect with executive authority. The narrative that Trump is a bumbling idiot who’s gonna start WW3 is an increasingly hard sell. He may be evil but he’s clearly not stupid. Those who underestimate him do so at their own peril.
        And seriously Reason, I don’t want to live in an echo chamber here but can’t you find a non libertarian writer whose articles don’t look like a cut and paste from Hufpo? For crissakes.

      2. “But the last 18 months have proven that I’m wrong.”
        Nah, he is indeed a buffoon. Success in electoral politics isn’t evidence of genius. Trump is confident, he’s energetic, he knows how to flatter people and, much like George W., he relates well to the ‘common man.

        Incidentally, I think you’re partly right, though more that the media reflexively takes the anti-Trump position even when he does something sensible.

        But there isn’t some master plan going on his mind; plenty of what he’s said and done will cause serious problems for him these four years. He was in the right place in the right time, he had a personality he could (to my disgust) sell to the American public, and he rode the popular momentum into power. I actually don’t think he ever thought more than one step ahead. He always, always plays to his immediate audience, whoever they were, and he never seemed to care, or even remember, what he said to the other audience yesterday. Apparently it worked.

        I’ll grant that he is talented and arguably has impressive instincts regarding people. But it’s the talent of a race horse or a fullback nobody can seem to bring down or a gifted motivational speaker who can sell people anything, not a chess grand-master.

  43. “How Trump Endangers Global Peace”

    Read that and somehow knew it was Chapman.

  44. I love how everyone knows what Trump thinks and what he will do! Can one of the prophets commenting post the winning Powerball numbers?

  45. Is Chapman the Hillary voter for real?

    My Lord, Hillary and Obama’s actions in Egypt and Libya alone were major catastrophes that unleashed unintended consequences.

    Not saying Trump may not have his own stupid war but this “Trump is dangerous’ crap is tiresome, partisan and without serious merit.

    Get back to me when he ACTUALLY matches Obama’s violence.

  46. His blithe disdain for long-standing commitments and understandings invites a different destructive cycle that could make the previous chaos seem like ripples on a pond.

    Good grief, Chapman, peak derp is just a moving target with you isn’t it?

  47. OT: Apparently Reince Priebus said this in an interview: “Our goal should be to try to make everything in the United States.”

    Reince Priebus, RNC chair, all in for autarky. Bipartisan agreement that free trade is bad. Libertarian moment!

  48. I don’t even have the time to point out what nonsensical drivel this is. Being honest about Taiwan, less intervention in the Middle East, no McCarthyism over Russia, and ensuring we don’t shoulder all of NATO’s burden are all bad things “because Trump”

    menu
    Mobile News

  49. Reince Priebus, RNC chair, all in for autarky. Bipartisan agreement that free trade is bad. Libertarian moment!

    flash games
    dora games” >dora games

  50. I’ll grant that he is talented and arguably has impressive instincts regarding people. But it’s the talent of a race horse or a fullback nobody can seem to bring down or a gifted motivational speaker who can sell people anything, not a chess grand-master.

    flash games
    mario games

  51. Good grief, Chapman, peak derp is just a moving target with you isn’t it?

    flash games
    flash games

  52. OT: Apparently Reince Priebus said this in an interview: “Our goal should be to try to make everything in the United States.”

    flash games
    flash games

  53. Not saying Trump may not have his own stupid war but this “Trump is dangerous’ crap is tiresome, partisan and without serious merit.

    spongebob games
    flash games

  54. Reince Priebus, RNC chair, all in for autarky. Bipartisan agreement that free trade is bad. Libertarian moment!

    Ben 10 games
    flash games

  55. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    CLICK THIS LINK????? http://www.Nypost55.com

  56. I disagree. One of Reagan’s major strengths was the fact that he was unpredictable. He could (as POTUS) joke about outlawing the Soviet Union and launching a nuclear attack! He was regarded as a “cowboy” and his unpredictability gave him a lot of clout he would not otherwise have had.

    Trump’s no different. At least potentially. Maybe Trump really IS crazy. Or maybe he’s crazy like a fox.

    I don’t have an inside track on this. I’m just going to have to wait and see. But contrasted with the past 8 years of a president who bent America over and pasted a “fuck me here” sign on America’s ass, I’ll take Trump.

  57. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    ??????? http://www.Nypost55.com

  58. when i looked at the figure of 14786 dollars .Than I have no other choice but to accept , what i saw .They have been doing this for a year and get rid of their debts.. Yesterday they purchased new Aston Martin ?
    visit This Site.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  59. Elizabeth. true that Janice`s comment is unimaginable… last saturday I got a top of the range Mazda MX-5 since I been bringin in $9155 this last 5 weeks and-just over, 10k this past month. it’s certainly the most-financialy rewarding I’ve ever had. I began this 10-months ago and almost straight away got at least $69, per-hr. browse this site

    =======================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  60. To leave US-NATO relations unchanged, would mean, leaving a Jihadist government (Turkey) in NATO, and continuing to subsidize NATO at US expense. If the Baltic states do not care enough about their own independence to contribute proportionately to NATO, why should the US pick up the difference?

    Mainland China will accommodate in other areas, to maintain the fiction there is one China. Rather than go to war with Taiwan. If Taiwan were better armed and had a larger military, perhaps even with nuclear arms, that would be a sufficient deterrence.

    Mainland China could be accommodated in other ways. SEATO could admit China as member, and relocate HQ to China.

    As usual, Steve Chapman remains blithely unaware of libertarian principles, would not stand by old friends like Taiwan who benefit the US, while would continue to subsidize fake friends who expect the US to pick up the tab. Please go away.

  61. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  62. Not sure the author himself has a coherent foreign policy; instead he seems to be regurgitating liberal talking points formulated to damage Trump politically. All Middle Eastern leaders (with the exception of the Israeli PM) are dictators, but that doesn’t mean we should follow crooked Hillary’s exhortation to remove Assad from power. Look what happened when Hillary worked to remove Khaddafi and Muburak–Isis took control of Libya and Morsi took control in Egypt. That made things even more chaotic in the Middle East. Removing Assad would allow Isis to control Syria and lead to the genocide of Christians who Lebanon. I see nothing wrong having strong diplomatic ties with Russia. FDR had diplomatic ties with Stalin (much worse than Putin) and the Russians were important allies during World War II. The Russians can also be an important ally in the war against terrorism and Isis, because they have also been victims (including yesterday’s assassination of a Russian diplomat). Furthermore, it is not wise to adopt a bellicose attitude against BOTH China and Russia. It is much wiser to make friends with Russia and leverage our alliance with Russia against China. I think the left’s effort to demonize anyone who wants to create diplomatic ties with Russia is dangerous. Calling such diplomats “Russian lovers,” “Russian appeasers” etc is really a call for bellicose attitude toward Russia, and the beginning of World War III.

  63. I can’t resist bringing up the time when I was a young college student, and all the Marxist professors loved Russia, and told all their students how much better Russia was as compared to the USA. American Marxists were able to get Russia visas so they could kneel down before the Russian rulers in Moscow. A LOT HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN. Now, the American left doesn’t even advocate having diplomatic relations with the Russians, accuse them without evidence of leaking information (even though the information was true) and cheers the assassination of a Russian diplomat.

  64. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  65. my friend’s sister makes $79 /hour on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 10 months but last month her payment was $19847 just working on the laptop for a few hours…

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  66. Could we rename this article please? How about “How Steve Chapman endangers Global Peace” by printing nonsense, lying, and dividing the American people. Hey Reason, are you listening? Can you please stop accepting articles from this guy?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.