@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:
I was in hospital for few days. Heart attack. Blockage. Angioplasty. Stent. Recovering. Doing well.
What do you think about Trump's self-proclaimed "home run" on his first foreign trip? Are we proud of our guy and his frequent displays of ignorance and immature schmuckiness?
I certainly hope your recovery continues at a speedy pace and that you are feeling back to normal soon.
Of course Trump is going to describe the results of his trip in glowing terms. Did Obama ever come back from a foreign trip and tell the press,
"Well I screwed the pooch big time on this one!"
You may not like his choice of words, but you really need to get used to that and let it go. He speaks colloquially. It may not be what some want from their president, but it's the least of all possible sins.
Very few of these trips by any president result in an entirely finished product that can be described as a "home run" and that is especially the case for a new president's first trip abroad. They are intended to send clear messages on direction, set the stage for the development of new agreements, relationships, and policies, and to drop a few symbolic gestures along the way.
I would say the president's visit to Saudi Arabia and his speech before the leaders of just about every Sunni Muslim nation on earth was as close to a home run as we could expect. He got high marks from a number of "experts" on foreign policy, the Middle East, and terrorism, and all those who have been lamenting that his words and deeds would drive these very nations away from cooperation with the US and the West in terms of fighting terrorism should breath a sigh of relief. It appears that he has made it clear to these leaders that, like them, he sees Iran as the major threat in the region and he is willing to provide them with real support in terms of their response to that threat. He also made it clear that the price of this support is their support in response to the threat of Islamist terrorism, and, maybe to a lesser extent, continued improved relations with Israel. It's far too soon to know how this will proceed and turn out, but it was a good start with promising signs. I feel certain that behind the scenes there were discussions about laying off these rulers in terms of human rights providing some progress was observed and this is always a dilemma when dealing with the world as it is rather than as you would like it to be. In the Middle East, if a government will only work with the virtuous, it won't get a lot of work done. The Obama Administration at one time thought it could work with Assad and Syria. Whether or not that a reasonable judgment as these things go is uncertain, but, again, you have to pick a devil or two with whom to dance or you will be sitting on the sidelines and letting events come to you.
The trip to the Vatican was virtually all symbolism as part of the trifecta of visiting the holy places of
the world's three great religions (I could quibble about leaving religions like Hinduism and Buddhism off that list but the whole thing was merely symbolism directed at the followers of the so called Big 3).
I'm not as up on the details of his visit to Israel, but from what I can tell it was largely "Israel we love you (more than the Obama Administration did) and we'll always have your back" The Israelis may have been disappointed that it didn't result in moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, or an unequivocal assertion that Israel has done all it can in terms of achieving peace with the Palestinians and it is the latter who need to step up to the plate, but I feel certain that this came as no surprise and Israel had plenty of prior notice about what would be discussed, and my bet is that what was discussed was Trump's plan involving the Sunnis and the role he would like Israel to play.
I'm pretty sure that the Europeans don't all think his trip there represented a home run, and whether the European media was more likely to join with the US MSM and play up each and every action or word as some sort of gaffe, than the Arab or Israeli media, the impression was given that he wasn't quite on his game in Europe. Liberal leaning UK papers made a ridiculously big deal about his handshake with Macron and an allegation that he physically shoved the PM of Montenegro (I believe it was) out of his way. The fact that US authorities leaked to the press intelligence on the Manchester Bombing that was received from UK authorities rightly caused a stir in the UK and was a personal source of embarrassment to me in my discussions with London colleagues. I'm sure it was even more a source of embarrassment for Trump and those who wish to view him in the worst light chose to describe May's discussion with him about it as a personal scolding which is of course ridiculous. Similarly his choice of the word "losers" to describe those involved in the Manchester bombing was derided in some quarters despite the fact that it's a perfect (but again colloquial) description of these people, and it's ironic, if not hypocritical that the criticism came from folks who reliably balk at more melodramatic descriptions that include the word "evil" or even "cowardly." As well some complained that he took the opportunity to call for a minute of silence as if that was some heinous breach of protocol and civility. The guy can't win for losing.
One of the repeated features of his campaign was the failure of certain NATO members to live up to their defense spending commitment, so I don't know why anyone was surprised when he brought it up. Of course the NATO members (and particularly the deadbeats among them) would have preferred that he unequivocally and fully recognized the relevancy and importance of NATO and reaffirmed the US commitment to Article 5, but that clear endorsement is the only bargaining chip he has. The Obama Administration recognized the basic unfairness of having certain NATO members (including, obviously, the US) carry the burden of defense spending while others reneged on their agreement (It was they who got the members to agree to an increase to 2% of GNP that has been ignored by so many) and they tried, without success, to alter the situation through polite entreaties. A more blunt and direct approach (Trump's nature regardless) was the next logical step. If it results in nations like Germany and Canada meeting their commitment I would say it will have been proven to be a home run.
I get that there are a lot of people who have a deeply personal distaste for Trump and would love to see him out of office tomorrow, and I've no problem with anyone disagreeing with the the foreign policy goals he pursued during this trip, but the fixation on every little gaffe (real or manufactured) that he may have been involved with
and to the exclusion of any serious consideration of the policy aspects of the trip is, frankly, childish and petty. I've no doubt that ridiculing Trump has become a bonding exercise in this forum and elsewhere, but the people who engage in it seem oblivious to the fact that in so doing, they make themselves deserving targets of ridicule as well.
