The Donelson Files

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, and these are principal ideas that political leader needs to consider even today.  In 1983, 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 war was quick as the United States and its allies went in with overwhelming force, destroying the Iraqi’s army.  The big controversy was if United States should occupy Iraq, but Bush and his administration decided not to, figuring the military objectives were achieved, and there was not much support beyond the war for a permanent occupation but followed a containment policy against Hussein and Iraq. 

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 and Iraq may yet end up in Iranian orbit.  The original war aims in Afghanistan was to dismantle the Taliban and terrorist network which was achieved in quick order.   Iraq represented a more nuance policy since it was believed that Hussien had a stockpile of chemical weapons and in the years following 9/11, the thought was could Hussien use his stockpile to fund terrorist activities?  The Second Iraq War had less conclusive goal to begin with and expanded into changing the focus of Iraqi’s government.  Post World War II began with the rebuilding of Europe not yet under the Soviet Empire beginning with the Marshall Plan to rebuild the European economy.  This effort proved successful as Western Europe became a bulwark against the Soviet Empire and West Germany because a Democratic beacon and economic powerhouse.  The objectives of the Marshal Plan were to remove trade barriers throughout Europe, modernize European industry, improve prosperity, and prevent the spread of communism in Europe.  In both France and Italy, the communist party were significant force in politics of both countries and Italy communist party was the second largest political party.  When the Soviet Empire collapsed, all of Europe became free. 

Truman Doctrine represented that United States would provide political, economic, and military assistance to combat external threats to Democratic countries, beginning in Europe.  Among the result of this doctrine was the formation of NATO which tied United States to Europe to combat the Soviet Empire.  Truman laid a vision for Americans to accept, a wiliness to defend Europe against the Soviet Empire and at the same time expand Western Europe, Japan economic performance, and create alliances needed to defend against the Soviet Empire.  Later these objectives were extended to the Middle East and Asia under the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations.  The Vietnam war began in earnest as the expansion of the Truman Doctrine by the Kennedy Administration.  The Eisenhower administration chose not to involve themselves heavily into Vietnam other than ushering an agreement of separating Vietnam into to two separate spheres, one run the communist the other not.  When the French were bogged down in the battle of Dien Bien Phu, Eisenhower would not intervene without Congressional approval and allies support. While Eisenhower supported South Vietnam, he did so with light footprint and privately opposed gradual escalation of the war privately in favor of a more overwhelming force.  

The lessons of Vietnam were the expansion of our obligation and the failure to use overwhelming force or lack of obtainable military goals to back the diplomatic efforts, thus Weinberger doctrine, designed to prevent another Vietnam while still giving United States officials a way to promote our national interest. 

The problem with post war Iraq is that this policy of restructuring  Iraq was never fully explained as an objective nor were the American people fully understanding the cost of Iraqi’s occupation and goal.  Obama administration first pulled out of Iraq while simultaneously moving toward rapprochement with Iran as part of “integrated Middle East Policy.”  What happened was the formation of Isis and Islamic terrorist taking giant  portion of Iraq and making an enemy, Iran, more powerful and influential in the Middle East.  Obama was forced to put American troops on the ground and Trump gave the military the ability to finish off Isis while playing nuance power game in the region, with the Russians Syria, Turks, and Iran among other players.

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.  The Reagan administration inherited the policy of containment of Communism and also had to be aware that a general conflict with the Soviet Empire would go nuclear.  Reagan own view was the “we win, and they lose” a simplistic but accurate way the Cold War actually ended. 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. 

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 how 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 nor will NATO get involved as they already rejected Ukraine acceptance in NATO as long as the war continues. Any acceptance of Ukraine into NATO has to wait until the conflict ends.

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 our we are concentrating on the Ukraine at the expense of the Chinese threat?  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 delay in providing M-1 tank and F-16 fighters violated 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.  The Weinberger doctrine makes it clear foreign policy and military activities need to be reassessed. 

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.

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 invasion.  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. 

I voted for Ron DeSantis in the Iowa caucus, and I like many other Iowans were the last to vote for DeSantis in this election cycle.  I already stated that Ron DeSantis would be the best choice for Vice President if governing is the most important thing.  Yes I know the biggest obstacles is that both men live in Florida so one would have to move, and the governor can’t move since he is the governor and Trump most likely is not moving from Mar-a-Largo so this is a pipe dream.  (I should point Dick Cheney changed his voter registration to Wyoming in 2000 from Texas since he could live in Texas and still be Bush’s Vice President. Somehow I don’t see Trump setting up a voter registration in New York just to have DeSantis as his Vice President.) 

There are those who criticized DeSantis not just dropping out but endorsing Trump.   There is a time when a politician looks at the road and see which the wind is blowing, and DeSantis saw it blowing Trump way.  Interesting enough, his closing statement was an endorsement not of Trump the man but of a movement of the middle class and the forgotten America, a vision of Republican Party for main street and not Wall Street.  He detailed the Trump agenda of border security and reminded Americas of the lawfare against Trump plus he added getting government spending under control, which is not exactly a Trump strength in his first term and reminded his fellow Republicans of his disagreement with Trump on the pandemic.  He also chastised Haley for being what he called corporate Republicans and there was not retreat back to establishment Republicans.

DeSantis is a politician with a  bright political future as one of Americas most successful governor and for him, the defeat of Biden and the Democratic leftist ideology.  To save America, you must first win and right now the leader of the GOP is Trump, and he is the horse the GOP is riding in November warts and all. I understand why some would not want to support Trump and certainly the last three years gives one pause in supporting him and his most recent comment of Taiwan makes you wonder what will a second Trump foreign policy look like.  I remember he was very supportive of Taiwan and even contacted the Taiwan President after his election.  And Trump has a history of going off script. 

There is much we don’t know what second term look like, will it be similar  to his first term in which he combines the best of Reagan and added his populist flair but hardly a radical departure.   Without participating in the debates, we don’t know and there are those who fear a second Trump term.  And with 91 indictments lined up, there is a very good possibility that he could be convicted.  I have friends, loyal conservatives, including many who voted for Trump, are not enthusiastic about voting for Trump,  and Iowa broadcaster Steve Deace noted that Iowa showed that our base is not enthusiastic as it should be presently.

The question is simple, do you hold your nose, vote for Trump and hope that he returns to the Trump of the first term and able to get right people in place or do you allow Biden to win, a man who is not fit for the job nor is his Vice President.  The Democrats are the Socialist party of America, and their goal is the complete transformation of America away from the Republican government we have.  DeSantis chose the path of holding his nose and supporting Trump.  I agree with that.  

Donald Trump will want to make a splash for his Vice-President and appoint a woman or a people of color.   There are plenty of choices, including Kristi Noem, Tim Scott, Elise Stefanik, Sarah Huckabee Sanders and even Nikki Haley. 

Nikki Haley is the choice to “unite the party” and encourage big donors to fund Trump’s campaign but so far she has shown herself to be squishy.  John Hinderaker summed up her record, strength, and weakness, “Nikki Haley did a good job as Governor of South Carolina, and an excellent job as Donald Trump’s UN Ambassador. That was where she became a favorite of many conservatives. At the same time, there is legitimate doubt about how conservative she really is. Several times, her first reaction to events has been misguided and not at all conservative–among others, after George Floyd’s death she tweeted about the need for police reform. It is hard to be more tone-deaf than that.” Her ability to be easily stumped on the campaign trail as Hinderaker notes, “When asked about the cause of the Civil War, Haley equivocated and couldn’t bring herself to say that the war was about slavery–a lapse which I attributed to her sensitivity to the view, rather widespread in some southern states, that the Civil War was really, contrary to history and common sense, about something else…Most recently, Haley is being faulted on the social issue of gender. On the campaign trail during an Iowa call-in event, she was unable to say whether a man can become a woman.”  Now add the 14-year-old rumor of her affairs and note this rumor came back after it was rumored she was considered to be Trump Vice President. (My own guess is that this was political ploy by someone who wanted to take Haley out before New Hampshire or send a message to Trump, no way that she should be Veep.)

Kristi Noem has been running for the VP slot without declaring, as she has been running ads about what a great state South Dakota is, and she was the only governor to keep her state open during the pandemic even as others closed down.  Governors DeSantis and Kemp joined her on this. She has made the point that South Dakota is open to business and freedom.   Now two words can derail her candidacy, Corey Lewandowski , a former Trump operative.  This rumor came out a couple of years ago before it disappeared. It reappeared after she endorsed Trump at a South Dakota rally. I am cynical enough to believe came up to keep her from being a serious consideration for the VP slot. 

Elise Stefanik is yet another who has been campaigning as a Vice President. Originally a moderate Republican, Stefanik has become a MAGA lady and using her support for Trump as a vehicle to move up the Republican congressional ladder and as thirty-nine she would be the youngest Vice President nominee.  Is her support of Trump a touch of opportunism or has she become MAGA lady?  Is she ready for prime time? So far no one has stated they had sex with her but we don’t know what she brings to the ticket.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders was the press secretary in the Trump era and a good press Secretary and now is governor of Arkansas.  She will give assurances to Trump supporters that his agenda will continue if something happens to him.  She now has executive experience and as the daughter of Mike Huckabee, a former governor and presidential candidate, she has been around politics for quite a long time.

Tim Scott has decided that maybe he might want to be VP as he chose to endorse Trump as oppose his fellow South Carolina, Nikki Haley and his advantage is he is black and provides Trump an option for a black choice for Vice President and he does have a solid conservative record, so he would be acceptable to Trump supporters.

The question is really how much a Vice-President brings to the table for voters and while there maybe some benefit to the right Vice President nominee, the reality is that voters will decide on the top of ticket and not who is in second.  Kamal Harris did not keep Joe Biden from being elected in 2020.  The important things to think about the Vice-President, do you see that individual ready to take over the Presidency if something happens to the President and when you are looking at two nominees running at the age at 78 and 82, then the quality of the Vice President matters.

For Republicans, when you run a 78-year-old Presidential nominee and one with ninety-one indictments, you better make sure the person who is the Vice President nominee is considered a serious person with gravitas.  There is one candidate who fits that description.  He is not black, he is not a woman, but he is a successful governor with a proven record of getting things done conservatively and just as important, he has dealt with several crisis beginning his solid record during the pandemic and his handling of hurricanes.  He has served in a war zone and congressional experience, so he knows Washington and understand the problem of the administrative state and Deep State.  He is not looking for dragons to slain overseas but not isolationist.  Now if Trump wants to ensure his legacy continues after his own presidency runs its course, then there is one choice that works, Ron DeSantis. 

Donald Trump will want to make a splash for his Vice-President and appoint a woman or a people of color.   There are plenty of choices, including Kristi Noem, Tim Scott, Elise Stefanik, Sarah Huckabee Sanders and even Nikki Haley. 

Nikki Haley is the choice to “unite the party” and encourage big donors to fund Trump’s campaign but so far she has shown herself to be squishy.  John Hinderaker summed up her record, strength, and weakness, “Nikki Haley did a good job as Governor of South Carolina, and an excellent job as Donald Trump’s UN Ambassador. That was where she became a favorite of many conservatives. At the same time, there is legitimate doubt about how conservative she really is. Several times, her first reaction to events has been misguided and not at all conservative–among others, after George Floyd’s death she tweeted about the need for police reform. It is hard to be more tone-deaf than that.” Her ability to be easily stumped on the campaign trail as Hinderaker notes, “When asked about the cause of the Civil War, Haley equivocated and couldn’t bring herself to say that the war was about slavery–a lapse which I attributed to her sensitivity to the view, rather widespread in some southern states, that the Civil War was really, contrary to history and common sense, about something else…Most recently, Haley is being faulted on the social issue of gender. On the campaign trail during an Iowa call-in event, she was unable to say whether a man can become a woman.”  Now add the 14-year-old rumor of her affairs and note this rumor came back after it was rumored she was considered to be Trump Vice President. (My own guess is that this was political ploy by someone who wanted to take Haley out before New Hampshire or send a message to Trump, no way that she should be Veep.)

Kristi Noem has been running for the VP slot without declaring, as she has been running ads about what a great state South Dakota is, and she was the only governor to keep her state open during the pandemic even as others closed down.  Governors DeSantis and Kemp joined her on this. She has made the point that South Dakota is open to business and freedom.   Now two words can derail her candidacy, Corey Lewandowski , a former Trump operative.  This rumor came out a couple of years ago before it disappeared. It reappeared after she endorsed Trump at a South Dakota rally. I am cynical enough to believe came up to keep her from being a serious consideration for the VP slot. 

Elise Stefanik is yet another who has been campaigning as a Vice President. Originally a moderate Republican, Stefanik has become a MAGA lady and using her support for Trump as a vehicle to move up the Republican congressional ladder and as thirty-nine she would be the youngest Vice President nominee.  Is her support of Trump a touch of opportunism or has she become MAGA lady?  Is she ready for prime time? So far no one has stated they had sex with her but we don’t know what she brings to the ticket.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders was the press secretary in the Trump era and a good press Secretary and now is governor of Arkansas.  She will give assurances to Trump supporters that his agenda will continue if something happens to him.  She now has executive experience and as the daughter of Mike Huckabee, a former governor and presidential candidate, she has been around politics for quite a long time.

Tim Scott has decided that maybe he might want to be VP as he chose to endorse Trump as oppose his fellow South Carolina, Nikki Haley and his advantage is he is black and provides Trump an option for a black choice for Vice President and he does have a solid conservative record, so he would be acceptable to Trump supporters.

The question is really how much a Vice-President brings to the table for voters and while there maybe some benefit to the right Vice President nominee, the reality is that voters will decide on the top of ticket and not who is in second.  Kamal Harris did not keep Joe Biden from being elected in 2020.  The important things to think about the Vice-President, do you see that individual ready to take over the Presidency if something happens to the President and when you are looking at two nominees running at the age at 78 and 82, then the quality of the Vice President matters.

For Republicans, when you run a 78-year-old Presidential nominee and one with ninety-one indictments, you better make sure the person who is the Vice President nominee is considered a serious person with gravitas.  There is one candidate who fits that description.  He is not black, he is not a woman, but he is a successful governor with a proven record of getting things done conservatively and just as important, he has dealt with several crisis beginning his solid record during the pandemic and his handling of hurricanes.  He has served in a war zone and congressional experience, so he knows Washington and understand the problem of the administrative state and Deep State.  He is not looking for dragons to slain overseas but not isolationist.  Now if Trump wants to ensure his legacy continues after his own presidency runs its course, then there is one choice that works, Ron DeSantis.