Author: donelsonfiles

Advocate of an America’s First foreign policy might begin reviewing the former Secretary of Defense Cap Weinberger six rules for engagement.  The principles were:

1. Forces should not be committed unless the action is vital to national interest.

2. Forces should be committed wholeheartedly with the intention of winning – or they should not be committed at all (No half-hearted commitment).

3. Forces should be committed with clearly defined political and military objectives.

4. The use of force should be the last resort (after all diplomatic initiatives have been exhausted).

5. The relationship between objectives and the force committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.

6. Before committing forces abroad (in foreign countries) there should be some reasonable assurance of public support.

Casper Weinberger set these principles in the aftermath of the Vietnam war in which America was divided and there was serious question on how the war was conducted, principal ideas that political leader needs to consider even today.  In 1984, two events occurred, one in which 240 Marines were killed as result of a suicide bomber in Beirut and the second, the invasion of Grenada in which United States removed a Marxist government that overthrew another leftist government, and the coup was supported by Cuban forces.

The Beirut attack was part of an ill-defined peace keeping mission in Lebanon and eventually Reagan, left Lebanon as oppose to getting sucked into an endless morose and in Grenada, United States went into with overpowering force, and easily removed the Cuban forces in an island located in our backyard, the Caribbean. 

The first Gulf War was influenced by this principle as United States and their alliance went into Kuwait with overwhelming force, defeated the Iraqi army easily before ending the war.  And Bush administration went to the American people and Congress to gain approval to use force if diplomacy failed in persuading Hussein to leave Kuwait.  After the failure of diplomacy, the first Gulf War commenced. 

The second Gulf War and the war on terror began with these principles but after the initial victory, the United States expanded the objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan to reinstitute democratic government in both countries.  From there, United States engaged in long term engagement that ended in failure in Afghanistan. 

The question is how to use these principles in the future to protect American national interest and not lapse into an isolationist position.  During the Reagan years, the number one objective was to defend the West from the Soviet Empire and everything else was tied to that.  Arming the Afghan rebels against the Russian was part of that strategy and within Congress there was bipartisan support for that and did not involve the use of U.S. troops.  Grenada could be justified since the threat was close to home and overwhelming force and clear military objectives were present.  The first Gulf War was another war that had defined objectives, expel Hussein from Kuwait, it was in a vital area that impacted both the United States and her allies and overwhelming force was used. Many criticized President George H W Bush for not marching to Baghdad but the Bush administration felt that their mandate was limited, nor they were not interested in occupying Iraq. We can argue the case maybe first President Bush should have gone to Bagdad, but then Weinberger thesis was that there was limit to what the American public would support and what they would not.  For many in the Bush years, they feared being involved in another insurgency.

There is a bipartisan consensus among some Democrats and Republicans that China is the number one threat to United States and the question is how best to deal with this threat without getting into involved in a failed military operations or expanded war.  That requires alliances and it requires a strong Domestic economy.

Ukraine is interesting case point and not necessarily an easy case study.  The one thing that everyone agrees or should agree, that it is not in our interest to involved American troops in Ukraine. The problem has been that the Biden Administration has failed to garner bipartisan support among the American people for aiding Ukraine nor have there been an endgame defined for what is considered a victory or acceptable to our side and Ukrainians.  There are many who will not view this in our national interest, but others could argue that if Russia succeed in Ukraine, this could encourage China to move against Taiwan.  Using the ideas behind Weinberger doctrine, policy makers need to make case if this is in our interest and that our long-term interest is being served.  If China is our number rival, does this enhance or disrupt our objectives against China? It is the responsibility for Biden to explain to the American people why Ukraine matters and what support for Ukraine need to prevail.  For many Americans, there is no real national interest in aiding Ukraine when our own borders are open and wondering when the billions flowing to Ukraine will end?  

As for the Ukraine, is it similar to helping mujahideen to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan? After the Russian invasion, we aided the mujahideen against the Russians and they provided the blood and we the money and arms.  In the case of the Ukraine, there is no support for American troops to be involved in the defense of Ukraine and that Ukraine fate is up to the Ukrainian people.  Since Ukraine is not NATO country, there is no reason to involved European troops.  

Within the Republican primary, Republican candidates shows differences, but there are some similar takes.  Nikki Haley’s argument is that there is a connection between Tawain and Ukraine, if we fail to support Ukraine or China may view Taiwan as vulnerable whereas others fear that a we are concentrating on the Ukraine at the expense of the Chinese.  The reasoning begins with using up our own military stock and the billions we have spent with no end game in sight.  The one thing that everyone agrees with, no United States troop will enter the conflict to aid the Ukrainians and it is their war to win or lose.  

The question is how much support is too much and what is the end goal?  Has the aid been parcel out bits by bits and in a half-hearted fashion?  Has Biden’s administration delayed providing M-1 tank and F-16 fighters, and does this violate the dictum that forces should be committed wholeheartedly or not at all?  And what are the clearly defined political and military objectives?  What is victory?  And how does the definition of victory change in the course of war?  During Korean war, once the Chinese joined the fight, the objective went from unifying the entire the Korean peninsula as one entity favorable to the West to merely defending the status quo of independent South Korea not controlled by communists. South Korea has zoomed ahead of North Korean since then and is not just a developed nation economically but is a leading military power in the region. 

In the case of the Ukraine, a NATO official hinted that a negotiated peace would allow Ukraine to be part of NATO and Russia in control of eastern portion of Ukraine.  Ukraine gets the protection of NATO in the future and aligned with NATO and EU, has a chance to provide its own economic miracle as a counter to Russia.  Certainly, having a military power of quarter of million soldiers with armed citizenry behind it will provide security for much of central Europe, the Nordic and Baltic states along with Poland which is in the process of strengthening their military.  The Polish-Ukraine alliance will include a minimum of 500,000 soldiers, well trained and with the latest military equipment.  Poland economy is on the verge of overtaking Great Britain by the end of the decade and many of the Baltic and Nordic states have their own sound economics bordering Russia.  This gives both United States and NATO option if Central European nations are capable of defending against Russia in the future.  This could be seen as a military objective in which followers of a modest foreign policy could get behind.  This is one policy that both Haley and DeSantis could agree on along most Republicans.    (There will be some debate on whether Ukraine should be a member of NATO, but the reality is that in order to gain a peace treaty, Ukraine has to be guaranteed some security arrangements against future Russian incursion and NATO is the only option that provides that.)

Frederic Fleitz noted, “That the heart of the Ramaswamy/Haley argument over the Ukraine War is the ultimate goal of the American policy on the war.  Ramaswamy’s position, though far from perfect generally adheres to the America First principles of prioritizing the security of the American people, keeping America out of unnecessary wars, and focusing actual threats to U.S. security like our southern border and China. Meanwhile Haley’s interventionist position, with no exit strategy and no limiting principles on foreign aid, is closer to President Biden’s.  … Vivek Ramaswamy has made some mistakes in his proposals to end the Ukraine war, but he realizes that the Biden Administration approach is feckless and unsustainable. I hope Mr. Ramaswamy quickly change his proposals on the war so they are not so generous to Russian and holds Russia accountable.”

Ramaswamy view that we are driving Russia into the hands of China does have some merit similar to Allies position in 1935 toward Italy invasion of Ethiopia.  Italy had not yet become a full ally of Nazis Germany and the year before, Mussolini protected Austria in a German attempt to overthrow the government and make Austria part of greater Germany.  The Allies and the League of Nation sanctioned Italy (except oil which would have hurt Italy) and drove Italy toward Germany.  Italy shortly afterwards joined Germany in a security pact and moved away from France and Great Britain.   That is also debatable point since Putin himself wants to rebuild a new Russian empire and build up Mother Russia with control of those nations like Ukraine.  So, lot depends how one feels about Putin own view.

Finally, an America first/Modest foreign policy begins with the control of the southern border. A nation that can’t control its border ceases to be a nation and massive illegal immigration along with the influx of drugs seeping through the border undermines any support for legal immigration and undermines the principles of successful immigration policy, assimilation.  An immigration policy without assimilation as its goal is national suicide and that is where we are right now. 

America First foreign policy begins with a strong economy at home, energy independent and controlling our southern borders.  It includes defining what is our greatest threat and most would agree it is China.  It also forces us to prioritize our objectives and working with Allies throughout the world but also understanding that there will be areas in which our Allies take the lead in their defense, example being Europe and NATO responsible for their defense from future Russian execution.  It also means examining how best to defend ourselves from a Chinese threat in the future and what alliances it will require.  America First foreign policy allows us to redefine our defense for the 21^st century. 

Here is review of the latest August unemployment data and what we find is what we have found from the depth of the Pandemic, Republic governors outperformed their Democrats governors. Since August of 2020, Republican states have seen lower unemployment rates. Of the top 11 states, 82 percent had Republican governors and 67 percent of upper half of lower unemployment had Republican governors. 56 percent of Republican governors had unemployment below the national average versus 44 percent of Democratic governors.

Throughout the year Republican governors have lower unemployment rates than their Democratic counterpart. We also found that those states that had Republicans running both the legislative and executive had a lower unemployment than their Democratic counterpart 2.7 percent to 3.1 percent and states in which Democrat and Republicans share power, was slightly lower than Democratic Governors at 3 percent.

The bad news is that among both Republican and Democratic states, unemployment has ticked up .1 percent.

Nikki Haley is running to be the first woman to be President and Kristi Noem has endorsed Trump to put her on the Trump’s VP short list but maybe the woman who should be President is Kim Reynolds, the governor of Iowa. 

When Reynolds elected as Terry Branstad running mate as Lt. governor, no one would have expected Reynolds prove to be one of the most effective Governor and the perfect leader during the Covid pandemic.   In many ways, she had her issues including two DUI’s in 1999 and 2000 where she hit rock bottom with problem drinking.  Since 2000, she has been sober.

Her political career began as being the treasurer of Iowa 76^th largest county before moving to the Iowa legislature in 2008.   In 2016, she finally received her college degree while serving as Lt. governor at the age of fifty-seven.  

Reynolds was an accidental governor when Branstad, the longest-serving governor in the state history, was appointed as ambassador to China and for many conservatives viewed her as a boring moderate, member of the political establishment.  In 2018, she managed to win the election as governor in her own right by 2.7 percent and managed to clear fifty percent of the vote while most polls had her trailing in the race.  Iowa rural west carried her over the top. Starting in 2016, Iowa was shifting to the right and moving light blue state through purple state before moving to the red category.

Michael Dukakis and Al Gore won Iowa plus Obama both won the state twice plus Tom Harkin, a long-time leftist icon won five terms.  The state swung sixteen points as Trump carried the state by nearly ten points and repeated that in 2020 plus in 2022, Republicans carried all the congressional district and GOP holds 34-16 in the state senate and 64-36 in the state house.  Kim Reynolds presided over the change from a purple state to a red state.  While DeSantis gives credit to changing Florida from purple to hard red in 2022, overlooked was Kim Reynolds own coattails.

What changed Reynolds own image was her handling the Covid Pandemic. While Ron DeSantis, South Dakota Kristi Noem and Brian Kemp get credit for leading the opening, and DeSantis essentially became the leader of the skeptics camp, many did not see Kim Reynolds own performance which in the end match those of her follow governor.   For many governors, they were forced to access without much guidance and very few had any public-health background, nor did it help that much of the information coming from Anthony Fauci and his follow scientists were contradictory if not outright wrong.  As Kim Rynolds noted recently, she came out of Covid a different governor.  What emerged was a more confident leader who used the Republican advantage to push transformative agenda and, in the process, won re-election of nearly 19 percent. 

Democrats Attorney General and Treasurer lost in 2022 and now she chairs the Republican Governors Association which shows rising respect among her fellow governors.  Republican parties in Minnesota, Michigan and Illinois do not have money and in disarray, Reynolds preside over one victory over another.  As one reporter noted, “She talks in streams, with a message that’s both disciplined and detailed, long on things accomplished rather than grievances unaddressed or shadowy forces arrayed against her. She sounds, in short, like a winner.” 

Reynolds record includes, expansion of school choice, a six-week fetal heartbeat abortion and cut taxes three times while phasing in a flat tax and reduces the state’s corporate-tax rate by more than half and eliminating taxes on retirement income.   On the budget side, she streamlined state government while eliminating twenty-one cabinet-level agencies and kept Iowa budget growth below the rate of inflation.   

Like DeSantis, she signed bans on sexually explicit books in school while dealing with sex and gender education and protecting minors from radical transgender medical treatments.   She noted that she was step ahead of Florida banning critical race theories and public -employee trainings.  She put her own stamp on the Iowa courts and this court reversed a 2018 ruling on the Iowa constitution protecting a right to abortion.  (Litigation over the heartbeat bill is ongoing so this has yet to be settled.)

Kim Reynolds is not a bomb thrower and is what we in Iowa call, Iowa nice, and she has same ability that Reagan, explaining her position in a calm tenor and just a tenor could be what needed to have to bring back many of the suburban voters we lost in 2020. 

Finally, back to Covid, Governor Reynolds understood that Iowa produces ten percent of the nation’s food supply and if a long blanket lockdown would have disastrous for food supply in America.  And she withstood the criticism for opening up her economy. She was proven right and now, as Republicans look for option for 2024 who is not Trump, they might want to look the humble chief executive from Iowa.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.” Jon Turley began a recent article on the rise of censorship with this quote from Friedrich Nietzsche, warning us that we can end up being the monsters we hate.

Turley, an old-fashioned Democrat who still believes in free speech and opposes censorship, observed, “President Donald Trump in particular and conservatives in general. It’s an age when reason and restraint are strangers…In various areas, Democrats have embraced repellent concepts in the effort to silence or even jail their opponents. What is most striking is that legal arguments now used by the left were once used against the left… As someone who was raised in a liberal, politically active Democratic family in Chicago, one of the greatest disappointments of my lifetime has been to watch the Democratic Party fight against free speech, pushing both censorship and blacklisting.”

Examples he has given included.

1. Democratic leaders have called for social media to ban or suppress opposing points of view, and the Twitter files showed, there was secret efforts by federal agencies including FBI to engage censorship by surrogate.
2. President Biden declared Social Media companies were killing people by not censoring citizens, never mind the fact that much of the information about the vaccines and Covid-19 by the government and much of the “establishment” were wrong and the skeptics censored were far more correct in their information.
3. New York Democrats proposed a bill to limit speech to “save democracy and as Turley noted, “former Democratic labor secretary suggested that free speech could be a form of tyranny.” (Reich praised Twitter removing a former President Donald Trump from their sight as a move to save Democracy, so Reich makes it clear that social media can decide what is and is not seen when he noted, “Someone has to decide on the algorithms in every platform – how they’re designed, how they evolve, what they reveal and what they hide.”  So as long Reich side is in control of the censorship, it is okay.)

Turley noted that when he warned of the abuses of prior periods like the Red Scare in congressional hearings, Representative Don Goldman invoked Oliver Wendall Holmes view that you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, Turley pointed that this quote came from a case to justify the imprisonment of socialists for their views during the Woodrow Wilson administration.  As Turley noted, “Other Democrats have used the line as a mantra, despite its origins in one of our most abusive anti-free speech periods during which the government targeted political dissidents on the left… Many today dismiss free speech concerns over the prosecution of Trump and his aides for their actions in challenging the 2020 election.”

On the recent Georgia indictment, Turley warned, “Like others, I opposed those actions and rejected Trump’s claims of systemic voting fraud. However, some of us have great reservations about the criminalization of such challenges, particularly under the type of sweeping conspiracy theory put forward by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. …While the Georgia indictment contains serious charges related to some individuals, the effort to bag Trump through a sweeping racketeering claim could lead in the future to the criminalization of election challenges by both parties. At one time, such a prosecution would have raised a modicum of concern on the left.”  Turley reminded the left that Democrats opposed certification of Republican victories and certainly if one can go after Trump for opposing the 2020 election, what could be done to any Democrats since they have challenged Republican victories. 

The Democrats are now the party of censorship, and we are talking the censorship of political ideas.  We now know much of the censored information from Covid to Biden’s corruption has proven to be correct. 

The recent Republican debate shows some difference but there are some similar.  Take the issue of Ukraine during the recent Republican debate.  Haley’s argument is that there is a connection between Tawain and Ukraine, if we fail to support Ukraine, China may view Taiwan as vulnerable whereas others fear that are we concentrating on the Ukraine at the expense of the Chinese.  The reasoning begins with using up our own military stock and the billions we have spent with no end game in sight. 

The one thing that everyone agrees with, no United States troop will enter the conflict to aid the Ukrainians and it is their war to win or lose.   As I mention, what needs to be explored is the review of the Weinberger doctrine which was controversial in the 1980’s during the Reagan years.

Just a remainder, those principles were:

1. Forces should not be committed unless the action is vital to national interest.

2. Forces should be committed wholeheartedly with the intention of winning – or they should not be committed at all (No half-hearted commitment).

3. Forces should be committed with clearly defined political and military objectives.

4. The use of force should be the last resort (after all diplomatic initiatives have been exhausted).

5. The relationship between objectives and the force committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.

6. Before committing forces abroad (in foreign countries) there should be some reasonable assurance of public support.

As for the Ukraine, is it similar to helping mujahideen to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan? After the Russian invasion, we aided the mujahideen against the Russians and they provided the blood and we the money.  In the case of the Ukraine, there is no support for American troops to be involved in the defense of Ukraine and that Ukraine fate is up to the Ukrainian people.  There is no support for American troops and since Ukraine is not NATO country, there is no reason to involved European troops.   

The question is how much support is too much and what is the end goal?  Has the aid been parcel out bits by bits and in a half-hearted fashion?  Has Biden’s administration delayed providing M-1 tank and F-16 fighters, and does this violate the dictum that forces should be committed wholeheartedly or not at all?  And what are the clearly defined political and military objectives?  What is victory?  And how does the definition of victory change in the course of war?  During Korean war, once the Chinese joined the fight, the objective went from the entire the Korean peninsula as one entity favorable to the West to merely defending the status quo of independent South Korea not controlled by communists. South Korea has zoomed ahead of North Korean and is not just a developed nation economically but is a leading military power in the region. 

In the case of the Ukraine, a NATO official hinted that a negotiated peace would allow Ukraine to be part of NATO and Russia in control of eastern portion of Ukraine.  Ukraine gets the protection of NATO in the future and aligned with NATO and EU, has a chance to provide its own economic miracle as a counter to Russia.  Certainly, having a military power of quarter of million soldiers with armed citizenry behind it will provide security for much of central Europe, the Nordic and Baltic states along with Poland which is in the process of strengthening their military.  The Polish-Ukraine alliance will include a minimum of 500,000 soldiers, well trained and with the latest military equipment.  Poland economy is on the verge of overtaking Great Britain by the end of the decade and many of the Baltic and Nordic states have their own sound economics bordering Russia.  This gives both United States and NATO option if Central European nations are capable of defending against Russia in the future.  This could be seen as a military objective in which followers of a modest foreign policy could get behind.  This is one policy that both Haley and DeSantis could agree on along most Republicans.    (There will be some debate on whether Ukraine should be a member of NATO, but the reality is that in order to gain a peace treaty, Ukraine has to be guaranteed some security arrangements against future Russian incursion and NATO is the one that provides that.)

Reagan years saw their number one objective as defeating the Soviet Empire and how does a modest policy face our number one threat, China?  The one thing that Reagan understood is that our economy strength played a role in our national defense and presently our economy is not strong presently with inflation percolating and energy policy designed to weaken our local energy production.   An American first policy begins with energy independence policy, full speed ahead along with anti-inflationary policy. Reducing spending and getting our budget under control. 

I made the case that the importance of supply side economy and that its definition must be expanded in my book, “Americas at the Abyss, will America survive?” Government spending must be controlled, regulations burden reduced, and supply side had to move beyond just tax cuts. Trump did two of three, reduce regulation and tax reduction which benefited most Americans. The result was continuation of the recovery and more importantly the middle class, minorities, and lower income saw their income increase.  Economic growth matters but Trump failure to get government under control hurt his overall economic plan and the massive spending during the Covid pandemic along with the anti-growth lockdown hurt the economy in 2020 and ended Trump chances to win. 

GOP governors are pursuing tax reductions and yet, they are conscious of making sure that they keep spending under control so as not to repeat what Brownback did in Kansas, cut taxes but failed to cut spending accordingly.  The new generation of governors are doing both while not just cutting taxes but trying to flatten taxes. 

The United States is in the middle of the tax-reduction revolution on a state level and as Jared Walczak of Tax Foundation, observed, “The past three years have seen the largest wave of state-tax cuts in the modern era, certainly since income taxes were created over a century ago at the state level. We have seen more than half of the states with income taxes cut their top rates. We have seen trimming of rates in other taxes, including thirteen states with corporate-income-tax cuts, a couple of states with sales-tax cuts, and trimming other taxes as well.” And these states are enacting real tax reforms.   State governors are providing a game plan to take to Washington to strengthen the economy.

The number one rival is China and China is building its military and have overtaken the United States with number of ships built but the negative for Chinese is that xi has increased government intervention in their economy and there is an economic slowdown occurring combined with population implosion, China may get old before it progresses further economically.   China advantage is that the present Administration has engaged policies that benefit them including the Green new deal in which our domestic energy is penalized while going with renewables benefits China since they control much of raw materials needed to produce wind and solar energy. 

Austin Bay in his Strategy page, “The Japanese fleet is the largest in the region and the South Korea fleet is growing. Japan also has naval and air bases American ships and military aircraft use, especially in wartime. The combination of Japanese, American and South Korea naval and air forces match whatever the Chinese can deploy against them. The large increase in Japanese defense spending is meant to maintain that superiority.”  An America First policy will include strengthening alliances in the Pacific to counter China and as I mention in my book “America at the Abyss, Will America survive?” that India must be included as part of any long-term alliances. India has border clashes with China and a natural rivalry, but Modie government is part of the BRIC’s economic alliances and that includes weakening the dollar as the reserve currency.   So, diplomacy is a must to keep India aligned with us.

Frederic Fleitz noted, “That the heart of the Ramaswamy/Haley argument over the Ukraine War is the ultimate goal of the American policy on the war.  Ramaswamy’s position, though far from perfect generally adheres to the America First principles of prioritizing the security of the American people, keeping America out of unnecessary wars, and focusing actual threats to U.S. security like our southern border and China. Meanwhile Haley’s interventionist position, with no exit strategy and no limiting principles on foreign aid, is closer to President Biden’s.  … Vivek Ramaswamy has made some mistakes in his proposals to end the Ukraine war, but he realizes that the Biden Administration approach is feckless and unsustainable. I hope Mr. Ramaswamy quickly his proposals on the war so they are not so generous to Russian and holds Russia accountable.”

Ramaswamy view that we are driving Russia into the hands of China does have some merit similar to Allies position in 1935 toward Italy invasion of Ethiopia.  Italy had not yet been a full ally of Nazis Germany and the year before, Mussolini protected Austria in a German attempt to overthrow the government and have Austria part of greater Germany.  The Allies and the League of Nation sanctioned Italy (except oil which would have hurt Italy) and drove Italy toward Germany.  Italy shortly afterwards joined Germany in a security pact and moved away from the alliances.   That is also debatable point since Putin himself wants to rebuild a new Russian empire and build up Mother Russia with control of those nations like Ukraine.  So, lot depends how one feels about Putin own view. 

Finally, an America first/Modest foreign policy begins with the control of the southern border. A nation that can’t control its border ceases to be a nation and massive illegal immigration along with the influx of drugs seeping through the border undermines any support for legal immigration and undermines the principles of successful immigration policy, assimilation.  An immigration policy without assimilation as its goal is national suicide and that is where we are right now.