America First Is Just Code for Unilateral Belligerence
Donald Trump is no peacenik.

Given America's growing empire, it would certainly be nice if a president would pull back—and try and change the world by example instead of picking fights or aiding wars. But is that what President Donald Trump is doing, as his cheerleaders claim?
Not by a mile, I note in my column at The Week.
There is much less than meets the eye to Trump's much-hyped pullouts from Afghanistan and Iraq. Meanwhile, his lovefest with the dictator of North Korea is proving to be a complete bust. He is also tearing up existing treaties with Iran and America's trading partners while boosting defense spending and cutting domestic spending—the exact opposite of what he'd promised to do during his campaign.
In light of this, it is a triumph of hope over reality to believe that Trump's America First foreign policy would bring peace and prosperity to the globe. Indeed, its purpose is to force other countries to do America's bidding without having to go through multilateral institutions or consulting America's allies.
Go here to read the column.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Here we go!
You're kidding right?
Trump is no peacenick and he's a coward who buckles when the respectable people tell him how awful it is to end illegal wars. But, knocking him for meeting with Kim is probably the worst argument to be made if you're criticizing him for being too bellicose.
Idiot.
Meanwhile, his lovefest with the dictator of North Korea is proving to be a complete bust.
This is some USDA Prime dumb.
So was the pearl clutching a couple years ago that he was going to start a nuclear war with North Korea
Yeah, right, because the primary job of the President of the United States - whoever the hell he is - is to govern and act in the best interest of the world, not in the best interest of the United States. I mean, note the title. It's President of the UNITED STATES. This take is imbecilic.
I swear it's true - the election of Trump has rendered the political and journalistic class (of all stripes) bat shit crazy.
It just exposed the underlying psychosis
Meh, SD was crazy prior to the Trump election.
Fuck off, Dahlmia. No one loves you.
Seriously, what's wrong with you? You can voice your objection to her opinion piece without resorting to this. She certainly hasn't addressed you in the same manner has she?
Considering she has multiple times called anyone who is joy full open borders racist or xenophobic, anyone who supports any of Trump's policies ignorant etc, how is that different?
"She certainly hasn't addressed you in the same manner has she?"
She's done much worse actually.
She slimes everybody at once, but no, she hasn't named him specifically in her insane rants.
Reason really needs to swing Shikha some TV appearances. Crazy is much more fun on stage
While this isn't necessarily wrong, he's been less belligerent and started fewer new wars and military interventions than the last 5 presidents. Of course, that's because after the last 30 years there aren't many new places to send our military to.
" after the last 30 years there aren't many new places to send our military to."
LOL, you are an optimist.
I don't recall invading the Bahamas. How about Fiji or Fuchal or whatever they call it?
So far the US has invaded Canada, Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Cuba, Haiti, Dominica Republic, Honduras, Guatemala, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Spain, Germany, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Russia, Grenada, Serbia, China, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia, Fiji, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Morocco, Algeria, Tunis, Libya, Ivory Coast, Somali, Sudan, so there are still another 153 left to do.
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands look like they might need a little taste of good ol American Freedom. If only Trump weren't so reluctant to invade other countries... worst Hitler ever.
You forgot France
Shika hears dog-whistles. They are everywhere!
Shika wants open borders
Everyone is welcome to America. Passports and borders are racist and a form of white national imperialism
No vaccine shots required - just walk into America for free things !!!
Is she really that good somewhere else to justify her presence here?
No.
I think I'm done trying to form any kind of cogent, coherent response to Shikha's mighty artillery of righteous words.
get paid over $120 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I'd be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I've been doing, AND GOOD LUCK.HERE>>>>>>.... http://www.Home.jobs89 com
Nationalistic racism for toddlers. AKA libertarianism? That's what the comments suggest. Someone argue differently. Someone take his wet mouth from Donald Trump's penis and explain why what you're doing has anything to do with individual freedom. Please?
Sometimes I get the feeling that the level of disassociation with reality you must express is dipping dangerously close to a normal ignorant individual. So you must correct the level, by stating something as ignorant as possible to correct your disassociation level.
Hey Mom, Tony forgot to take his Thorazine again...
Shikha Dalmia Is Just Code for International Socialist Belligerence.
I mean, seriously. What are her themes?
1) Orange Man Bad.
2) Borders Bad.
3) India's Socialists Good, India's Conservatives Bad.
When's the last time anything has appeared on H&R under her byline that wasn't one of those three?
(Oh, sure, you'll often see an aside somewhere in the latter pieces that the socialists are "mistaken" on economics, as if it's just a quirk that can be overlooked rather than a disastrous demand for mass poverty, suffering, and death.)
Meanwhile, his lovefest with the dictator of North Korea is proving to be a complete bust.
That's because it's a North Korea First policy.
I can understand skepticism of the "America First" idea in all circumstances, but the alternative always seems to be "Let's be more like....*insert crappier country*
I'm really trying to think of one single nation on the planet that doesn't act in its own interest.
Shika dumb
I pay for the government with my taxes - but it's bad if they (very occasionally) operate in a way that is beneficial to me? Got it.
So, Reason thinks the Iran deal was a GOOD idea?
Hmm.
Reason, circa 1938 --- "Well, the Munich Agreement is a good thing because it brought peace with little collateral damage, if you don't count Czechs and all"
Why is leaving the Iran deal bad but trying to improve relations with N Korea ALSO bad? And why is asking NATO to pull their weight in the alliance ALSO bad? Are we supposed to be the world's charity AND policeman?
And isn't telling Europe that they need to defend themselves the opposite of being beligerent? Dalmia is so stupid it is not even fun to pick on her anymore.
It's like they do not get that a treaty where only one side abides by it is not actually a treaty.
"There is much less than meets the eye to Trump's much-hyped pullouts from Afghanistan and Iraq."
Please tell. I'm confused why pulling out of endless war is a bad thing.
Well, Ms. Dalmia's argument seems to be that Trump's actions in those countries, and on NATO, aren't good because 1) he's only delivering half-a-loaf, rather than immediately yanking all American forces out, and 2) Trump's actions aren't motivated by pure conviction against interventionism.
If only she'd judge Indian Communists that harshly, rather than praising them for being opposed to Hindu nationalists.
It's pretty amazing that a candidate for President of the United States could campaign on putting the interests of the United States foremost in his approach to do the job as an outside-the-box strategy.
It's even more amazing that such an approach - to the job of President of the United States - would receive self-righteous pushback.
Please tell me no one actually read the article.
Not a chance.
But I don't want a peacenik president any more than I want a General Turgidson president. I want a president who regards military action the way a doctor regards surgery: you don't do it unnecessarily, but you don't shrink from it when it's needed. I don't want a warmonger doctor gleefully grabbing a scalpel at the first excuse, but I also don't want a peacenik doctor trying to treat my cancer with "essential oils."
I think what I've learned from reading Reason is that the person Shikha hates the most in the entire universe absolutely needs to become President. She's so far wrong right now.
Dalmia you lost me at "Given America's growing empire". What empire are you referring to? I realize you have a real hard on for this country but not sure why? I don't think anyone begged you to move here 30 years ago. Perhaps you can still buy a ticket home. Please!
I wish she was more honest about her love of Socialism.