Friday, July 22, 2016

Trump and NATO, again

Jeffrey Goldberg is not happy with even Trump's fairly tame hints of Buchananism regarding NATO.

For some years, Pat Buchanan has been questioning whether Americans are or ought to be willing to fight Russia for Riga, Tallinn, or Vilnius - or for that matter China for Seoul, Taipei, Tokyo, or Canberra.

He and his paleocon associates have repeatedly urged American withdrawal from the relevant alliances and commitments, and argued against further efforts to prevent proliferation or even nukes for Iran.

Donald Trump has from time to time indicated his strong sympathy for the Buchananite view.

Jeffrey Goldberg has joined Hillary, Obama, and many other Democrats and Republicans in opposing him emphatically on American fidelity to these alliances and continued efforts to forestall proliferation of nuclear weapons.

At the National Review.

At the American Spectator.

At Vox.

Of course, it is possible these alliances would survive our withdrawal and the world would not fall apart.

Or isn't it?

Do we really think a Europe of more than 300 million cannot defend itself against a Russia of less than 200 million?

That Japan could not stand up to China, even if allied to South Korea, Oceania, Southeast Asia and India?

And why, anyway, is it our problem?

Yes, the transition period could be messy.

But should Riga hide from Moscow behind your granddaughter in Chicago?

A war with Russia would be the worst ever for America, and maybe the world.

How, actually, should we back away from those alliances, according to Buchananism?

Must be 50 ways to leave your lover.

No comments:

Post a Comment