Opinion: The Crucial Decisions Awaiting the Next U.S. President A World on Edge

[Social Media]

 

One of the most pressing questions for the next president is whether they are prepared to use force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons or to deter China from subjugating Taiwan—two scenarios that may well unfold during their tenure. These are not hypothetical issues; they are imminent threats that could alter the balance of power in critical regions of the world. The president will need to weigh the costs of military intervention against the dangers of inaction. If Iran obtains nuclear capabilities, it could trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, destabilizing an already volatile region. If China succeeds in bringing Taiwan under its control, it would not only crush a thriving democracy but also give Beijing a strategic foothold in the Pacific, challenging U.S. influence and security.

 

Beyond these immediate concerns, the president must also consider the broader implications of U.S. foreign policy. Are they willing to use the threat of an arms embargo to pressure allies like Ukraine into accepting ceasefire agreements they may not want? This question strikes at the heart of America's role as both a protector of its allies and a promoter of global stability. The president's decisions will reveal whether they prioritize short-term peace or long-term strategic interests.

 

Military spending is another critical issue that will demand the next president's attention. With great-power competition intensifying and new asymmetric threats emerging, such as those posed by groups like the Houthis, there may be a need to increase defense spending to levels not seen since the Cold War. This would require a substantial commitment of resources, both financial and human. The president will need to ask whether maintaining America's global primacy is worth the price—an effort that could demand significant sacrifices in treasure and sometimes blood.

 

If the president decides that the cost is too high, they might choose a path of retrenchment, scaling back America's global commitments. This would be a decision rooted in honesty, modesty, and frugality, but it would come with its own risks. The world is not a place where nations can simply retreat into isolation, hoping that others will leave them alone if they do the same. History has shown that such an approach is doomed to fail. The United States is not a remote, tranquil nation like New Zealand, sheltered by the implicit protection of a benign ally. America has far-reaching territorial, maritime, and commercial interests that require vigilant protection against bad actors in various regions, from China in the South China Sea to Iran in the Strait of Hormuz to Russia in the cyber domain.

 

Moreover, the United States stands for a set of ideals—human rights and personal liberties—that invariably attract the ire of despots and fanatics. These principles are not just abstract concepts; they are the foundation of the international order that America has helped build and sustain since the end of World War II. Abandoning these principles would not only undermine America's moral authority but also embolden those who seek to challenge the existing order.

 

The dangers of isolationism are not hypothetical; they are real, and history provides a stark reminder of the consequences. In the 1920s and 1930s, the United States experimented with isolationism, only to find itself drawn into the most devastating conflict in human history. The lesson is clear: disengagement from the world does not lead to peace; it leads to chaos and war.

 

In recent years, however, the consensus around America's global role has begun to fray. Statements like JD Vance's in 2022, when he declared, "I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another," suggest a growing willingness to abandon the costs of global primacy. Similarly, Kamala Harris's assertion in 2020 that "I unequivocally agree with the goal of reducing the defense budget and redirecting funding to communities in need" reflects a shift towards prioritizing domestic concerns over international responsibilities.

 

While these positions may have seemed merely shortsighted at the time, they have become increasingly dangerous as the international situation has deteriorated. The world is witnessing the formation of a new Axis of Aggression, comprising Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China, which is spreading violence and instability from Kharkiv to Tel Aviv to the Spratly Islands. Beijing has been expanding its nuclear arsenal at an alarming rate and may double it again by the end of the decade. Tehran is on the verge of acquiring the capability to produce weapons-grade uranium, with Secretary of State Antony Blinken warning that Iran's nuclear breakout time is "now probably one or two weeks." Although Moscow has paused its plans to arm the Houthis with missiles, the mere threat gives the Kremlin leverage in other parts of the world.

 

These developments are a stark reminder of a Leninist maxim: "Probe with bayonets. If you find mush, you push." Recent history provides several examples of when America's adversaries have found mush instead of steel. George W. Bush's weak response to Russia's invasion of Georgia, Barack Obama's tepid reaction to Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, and Donald Trump's threats to withdraw from NATO and his attempt (ultimately thwarted by his own advisers) to pull U.S. troops from northern Syria all sent signals of weakness.

 

President Biden's chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan further compounded the perception of American decline. The slow delivery of critical weapon systems to Ukraine and the inadequate response to attacks by Iranian-backed militias against U.S. forces have only reinforced this image.

 

However, when the United States demonstrates resolve, it can still deter aggression. At his best, President Biden provided the steel and spine that helped Ukraine resist Russia's invasion. He reinforced NATO by bringing Finland and Sweden into the alliance, deterred Hezbollah from attacking northern Israel after October 7, strengthened military alliances across the Pacific, and pledged to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion. These actions represent a legacy of strength that history will likely remember favorably.

 

The key question now is whether the next president will continue to build on this legacy or retreat from it. There is a dangerous belief that the views of individual candidates on foreign policy do not matter much, as national interest and prestige will ultimately dictate similar policies regardless of who is in office. This is a delusion. The signals of strength or weakness that the next administration sends in its early days will shape the decisions of both adversaries and allies. 

 

For those who advocate abandoning Ukraine to focus on confronting China, they must consider how deserting one ally in the West might embolden an adversary in the East. Similarly, progressives who argue that the U.S. spends too much on defense should think about the potentially astronomical costs of restoring peace once it has been lost.

 

The invasion of Ukraine and the attacks on October 7 were supposed to serve as wake-up calls, signaling that the long nap from history was over. The next president will have to decide whether to keep hitting the snooze button or to wake up and confront the harsh realities of a world that is anything but forgiving. The choices made in the coming years will determine not only the future of the United States but also the future of the global order it has done so much to shape. The stakes could not be higher.

 

Credit: NYT  2024-08-09

 

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

 

Cigna offers a variety of health insurance plans designed to meet the minimum requirement for medical treatment coverage, with benefits reaching up to THB 3 million. These plans are tailored to provide comprehensive healthcare solutions for expatriates, ensuring peace of mind and access to quality medical services. To explore the full range of Cigna's expat health insurance options and find a plan that suits your needs, click here for more information.

[RichardColeman]

3 hours ago, Social Media said:

Similarly, Kamala Harris's assertion in 2020 that "I unequivocally agree with the goal of reducing the defense budget and redirecting funding to communities in need"

OK defence budget to BLM, trans rights , kid surgery, illegal migrants, people not wanting to pay their loans back and anyone else on the left with a begging bowl.

[thaipo7]

2 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

OK defence budget to BLM, trans rights , kid surgery, illegal migrants, people not wanting to pay their loans back and anyone else on the left with a begging bowl.

 

3 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

OK defence budget to BLM, trans rights , kid surgery, illegal migrants, people not wanting to pay their loans back and anyone else on the left with a begging bowl.

If the country was operating under the Constitution and a Capitalist society, there would not be much need for communities in need.  Democrats have created this welfare state with their policies.  Yes, there will always be people in real need and will need help.

[Cryingdick]

An empty anonymous podium like pictured is the current policy and would be how Kamala runs the show. Never seen in public. Invisible.

[Tug]

2 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

An empty anonymous podium like pictured is the current policy and would be how Kamala runs the show. Never seen in public. Invisible.

Huh??she’s all over the tv polling 10-12 thousand strong crowds…..whereas Donald is bunkered down at mar a lardo giving long nonsensical commentary ie press conferences.really showing his age it seems.anyway on topic we all know trump wants to cut and run that’s why he’s so popular with our enemies.Kmala seems to be about supporting nato kicking Russia out of Ukraine and checking China.keeping our alliances strong in the face of this dangerous world she’s a different person from 2020

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, Tug said:

Huh??she’s all over the tv polling 10-12 thousand strong crowds…..whereas Donald is bunkered down at mar a lardo giving long nonsensical commentary ie press conferences.really showing his age it seems.anyway on topic we all know trump wants to cut and run that’s why he’s so popular with our enemies.Kmala seems to be about supporting nato kicking Russia out of Ukraine and checking China.keeping our alliances strong in the face of this dangerous world she’s a different person from 2020

That's like Madonna siniging the same songs at a concert. Let her do a one hour Q&A like Trump did today. Now you can attack what he said and that is fine. At keast we have that info. Let Kamala do an hour of the same so we know where she is at. Her campaign is an opaque wall.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Social Media said:

One of the most pressing questions for the next president is whether they are prepared to use force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons or to deter China from subjugating Taiwan

IMO, it's not necessary for the US to do anything for Taiwan other than giving them loads of surface to surface  and surface to air missiles, If China can't get to Taiwan it can't invade.

 

As for Iran, not for nothing is it thought that Armageddon will take place in the Middle East. I do not envy anyone that has to sort that morass.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

That's like Madonna siniging the same songs at a concert. Let her do a one hour Q&A like Trump did today. Now you can attack what he said and that is fine. At keast we have that info. Let Kamala do an hour of the same so we know where she is at. Her campaign is an opaque wall.

It's far better for Harris to say not much over and over, and concentrate on attacking Trump, as her actual policies ( if she has any of her own ) might lose her the election.

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO, it's not necessary for the US to do anything for Taiwan other than giving them loads of surface to surface  and surface to air missiles, If China can't get to Taiwan it can't invade.

 

As for Iran, not for nothing is it thought that Armageddon will take place in the Middle East. I do not envy anyone that has to sort that morass.

 

China would sink the entire naval fleet of the USA with in about an hour if we go with in 1,000 miles of their territory. The jdea of aircraft carriers that are as old as my deceased grandfather can win is laughable these days.

[Cryingdick]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's far better for Harris to say not much over and over, and concentrate on attacking Trump, as her actual policies ( if she has any of her own ) might lose her the election.

You can basically transpose her rallies on top of eachother and they are identical almost to the very word..Trump is repetitive but you can't just overlay what he says in that same way. He also does one hour Q&A with all media present. Kamala is the milli vanilli of politics. Girl you know it's true.

Edited August 9 by Cryingdick

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Social Media said:

The United States is not a remote, tranquil nation like New Zealand, sheltered by the implicit protection of a benign ally.

Speaking as someone actually living there, "tranquil" is not the description I'd use. It's a political mess.

 

As for the implicit protection of a benign ally, the support certainly shouldn't be taken for granted. Given NZ doesn't even attempt to have a viable defense force, IMO, and we told the US to keep their ships out of NZ ports, the US may decide that NZ isn't worth defending. If NZ doesn't want to pay more for a proper defense force, why would the US do it for us? Trump may have an opinion on nations that don't pay their fair share.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

 

China would sink the entire naval fleet of the USA with in about an hour if we go with in 1,000 miles of their territory. The jdea of aircraft carriers that are as old as my deceased grandfather can win is laughable these days.

As I am wont to say recently, large ships are just slow moving targets against modern missiles and drones.

 

Thailand may find themselves in the US good books again, if the US wishes to station air assets near to China. That'd be a nice earner for LOS, if they ignore the reaction from China. The bar girls will be happy if it happens.

[Cryingdick]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Speaking as someone actually living there, "tranquil" is not the description I'd use. It's a political mess.

 

As for the implicit protection of a benign ally, the support certainly shouldn't be taken for granted. Given NZ doesn't even attempt to have a viable defense force, IMO, and we told the US to keep their ships out of NZ ports, the US may decide that NZ isn't worth defending. If NZ doesn't want to pay more for a proper defense force, why would the US do it for us? Trump may have an opinion on nations that don't pay their fair share.

People that criticize the United States for wanting to become isolationist, want the USA to engage in a war that can't be won and don't ever say anything about deadbeat nations that don't pay their share. If you are somewhere like Poland, germany France etc. it is in your direct intersection to become stringer now and sooner than that. Russia couldn't steam roll Ukraine and similarly the USA can only offer basic help. We don't have a huge military full of bad asses. We can send a couple of morbidly obese bureaucrats and missiles if you buy them.

[wombat]

the most crucial decision is where are all the captive middle class mortgage belt people coming from to pay for what the incoming president inherits

[wombat]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

station air assets near to China.

already got that with the new rotation of bombers out of Tindal airbase NT Oz

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, wombat said:

already got that with the new rotation of bombers out of Tindal airbase NT Oz

That's a long way to go to bomb China. They have to pass a lot of land that can be used by China for anti air defenses. From Thailand it's not far and over Thailand all the way to the Chinese border.

 

In any event, I think big bombers are as dead as battleships. It'll be stealth bombers, but the present ones probably don't have the range to be stationed in Oz. While Thailand may refuse, the Philippines may be keen for a few million in base rent.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, Social Media said:

He reinforced NATO by bringing Finland and Sweden into the alliance, deterred Hezbollah from attacking northern Israel after October 7,

deterred Hezbollah from attacking northern Israel after October 7,

 

Do tell?

 

I guess the author isn't aware of the activity going on in Southern Lebanon, and it's going to kick off even more as the israelis keep assassinating Hezbollah leaders and they are not amused.

[sirineou]

That is a very long opinion article to read.

 

IMO , it was a stroke of genius when in 1947 the US renamed the Department of War,  to the department of Defence.  

[Luuk Chaai]

21 hours ago, Tug said:

Huh??she’s all over the tv polling 10-12 thousand strong crowds…..whereas Donald is bunkered down at mar a lardo giving long nonsensical commentary ie press conferences.really showing his age it seems.anyway on topic we all know trump wants to cut and run that’s why he’s so popular with our enemies.Kmala seems to be about supporting nato kicking Russia out of Ukraine and checking China.keeping our alliances strong in the face of this dangerous world she’s a different person from 2020

 

she's the same babbling,cackling idiot ..   they forgot to mention her "Yellow bus"  was a "short bus" ( US residents will get this )

[KhunLA]

On 8/9/2024 at 7:22 AM, Tug said:

Huh??she’s all over the tv polling 10-12 thousand strong crowds…..whereas Donald is bunkered down at mar a lardo giving long nonsensical commentary ie press conferences.really showing his age it seems.anyway on topic we all know trump wants to cut and run that’s why he’s so popular with our enemies.Kmala seems to be about supporting nato kicking Russia out of Ukraine and checking China.keeping our alliances strong in the face of this dangerous world she’s a different person from 2020

She's all over the internet also, though not allowed to post.

 

Between her word salads & cackling, not sure to laugh or cry, if this is all the dems can come up with.   They really are hilarious.  Even Willie Brown is probably thinking ... "Oh GOD, what have I done ? " 

[Gweiloman]