Saturday, November 19, 2016

Zero Hedge — War Breaks Out Between Neo-Cons And Libertarians Over Trump's Foreign Policy

"These figures [necons and foreign policy idealists] all generally believe that the United States needs to take an active role in the world from the Middle East to East Asia to deter enemies and reassure allies."
In short, should this group prevail, it would be the equivalent of 4 more years of HIllary Clinton running the State Department.

The outsider group [Libertarians and foreign policy realists] sees things differently.

They want to revamp American foreign policy in a different direction from the last two administrations. Luckily, this particular camp is also more in line with Trump’s views questioning the value of NATO, a position that horrified many in the establishment camp....
Trump realizes that the populist mood is America First and forget the foreign adventurism and attempts at state building — based on demonstrated results that have been clear failures.

Zero Hedge
War Breaks Out Between Neo-Cons And Libertarians Over Trump's Foreign Policy
Submitted by Tyler Durden

12 comments:

Ignacio said...

"Libertarians"? "Libertarians" and "tea party" are in the path to extinction inside the GOP and specially inside Trump admin, which is everything but libertarian.

Maybe between traditional conservatives and neocons is more accurate. ZH typically mangling meaning to push their biases.

Matt Franko said...

Where have they been this was going on all throughout the primaries and general...

And I don think they have "libertarians" here correct either....

Tom Hickey said...

Rand Paul has said he will filibuster John Bolton if Trump chooses him for a cabinet position, and Ron Paul has been leading the charge against the neocons and internationalists as usual with his characteristic vigor. Father and son are Libertarians.

Unknown said...

There is very little concrete in the ZH article about what the alternative to the establishment is about. So far, the MSM is only full of the names of the same old neoliberal retreads.

It could be that Trump is holding his cards close to the chest. But nothing is really appearing out there that signifies that Trump is considering anybody other than the establishment neoliberal types.

Matt Franko said...

Unk,

be careful to not conflate those who are non-"neo-con" with being 'anti-war'... libertarians on second thought might be correct here the libertarians are typically anti-war up and down and thru thru and thru ("non-agression principle!" blah, blah...)


Trump has said about Iraq that "we attacked THE WRONG country...." not "we shouldnt have attacked anybody..."

Trump is not a neo-con but I would not say that he is anti-war... if Iraq was the "wrong country" which was the correct country? KSA? Iran? will have to wait and see...



Tom Hickey said...

The non-aggression principle is pretty well established in custom and law, including international law.

This says nothing against self-defense. Libertarian politicians are fine with a strong defense, as in Fortress America.

They don't believe that "the best defense is a strong offense," as in pre-emptive strikes on some pretext like promoting freedom and democracy internationally or R2P, unlike both neocons and liberal interventionists. They are not anti-war, but rather against wars of choice and international meddling.

Matt Franko said...

Well lets see how get-even-counterpuncher Trump reacts the first time Iran holds one of their "Death to America!" rallies when he is President...

Did you see him react to the Pence disrespect over the weekend? I dont think he is going to just sluff it off.... he doesnt do 'when they go low, we go high.... blah blah..."

He might kick their ass so hard they have to become a Pacific nation....

As a counterpuncher he wont do pre-emptive strikes... whoever would become his foe will have to throw the first punch... then it will probably be on ... neo-cons or no neo-cons...

Unknown said...

Matt,

"Death to ......" is a common utterance at rallies all through Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh - it was something I grew up with. It was just a mere way of showing displeasure about persons, policies etc.

Zindabad, Murdabad

Jindabad means 'Long Live'
Murdabad means ' Death to'
These are URDU words used by slogan- shouting purposes in suitable gatherings. You may say that these are HIDUSTHANI words but not purely HINDI. It will also be wrong to attribute these words to "terrorists" --- because these words have been in use in Urdu prose and poetry through ages in romantic and dramatic settings alike.

Tom Hickey said...



A more apt rendering would be "Fuck you ...."

Bob said...

Throwing their shoes at you is another way of expressing their disgust. Ask George W. he'll tell you!

Matt Franko said...

Well they better modify their custom.....

The Rombach Report said...

If you want to get a good appreciation for U.S. libertarian posture regarding foreign policy and war, consider this address by John Quincy Adams on July 4, 1821. 'Monsters to Destroy'....

"And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind? Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.