I'm a bit confused by Trumps recent spate of "policy proposals". I'm not quite sure how they fit with what he campaigned on, and whether or not they make sense as priorities.
I've addressed the port issue, and believe that Trump is wrong in his blanket support of the union.
I believe that it was a mistake to cede control of the Panama canal, leading to China gaining an inordinate amount of control over a strategic US asset. I agree that we should look at reacquiring control of the canal.
I don't know enough about Greenland to understand what value it would bring to the US, beyond it's obviously strategic position in the North Atlantic. I'm not sure how much of a threat the Russian navy is at this point, but a foothold in that area seems less valuable now than it would have been during the Cold War. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that it's a bizarre thing to prioritize, with very little explanation of the benefits.
Likewise with Canada. I know we've all joked about annexing Canada, but seriously. I get that they have natural resources that would be more assured if Canada was a state, but is that really enough? Do we really want another 41,000,000 citizens, most of whom are so liberal that they make Dan look conservative? Again, would there have been strategic benefits to having control of part of the Arctic at one point, sure? Now, I don't know. Are the other reasons why having the US extend into the Arctic, possibly. Is that worth annexing Canada, who knows. Again, interesting theoretical conversation, but is this a priority?
Personally, I'd have hoped for focus on the economy, reigning in the federal government, getting his cabinet approved, and dealing with immigration. But that's me.
Finally, why in the hell is Trump selling freaking watches? Especially analogue watches?
4 comments:
Maybe he wants to use his power as president to monopolize the watch industry! He can sell what he likes so long as he's not doing anything criminal or unconstitutional. At least he's not selling influence like the Biden Crime Family.
I've heard a bit about the Greenland thing, and though not enough to truly comment, I can say that I didn't read anything which gives me pause. Having it as an American territory will certainly cost us, but they might be able to pay for themselves. I don't know. Just speculating.
I would also speculate that the Canada as a state thing is more rhetoric than a goal. To have that nation operate as a kindred spirit would be good enough and I would suspect Trump's intentions are more along those lines. It's nice to know that Trudeau is taking a powder. I hope the people there turn to a more conservative president for their sake as well as the world's.
Oh yeah...the canal. I like the idea of regaining control of it.
The notion of strategic benefits doesn't require that we have to be in conflict at the moment. It's always better to have more control or influence than less, so be it Greenland, Canada or the Panama Canal, it serves us to think of the strategic benefits of these and other areas of the world.
But I agree with what you'd like to see as of first importance, while at the same time more than that can and should be addressed.
He can do what he wants, it just plays into the negative image he has. But it's his choice if he wants to do things that make him look good, or things that don't.
I'm with you on Greenland. Back during the Cold War it might have made sense. But at that point NATO was stronger and we benefited from it's strategic position. I haven't heard of there being any undeveloped natural resources there, which might have explained his fascination.
I agree that the better option is a Canadian government that is more aligned with the US and having the two countries work together. At some point, if Canada doesn't change course, it might be more attractive to annex them. But not now.
I agree that I'd prefer that he'd not given up control, and that regaining control would be preferable. Kind of the whole point of strategic assets like this is that they be controlled by the US long enough before a conflict as to affect the calculus of any attacker. If China decided to go to war with the US, the first thing they'd do is shut down the Canal to US shipping. Depending on the number of war/supply ships that needed to transit from the Atlantic Fleet to the Pacific Fleet, that would add days/weeks to a naval response.
FWIW, I have no problem with the US rethinking what makes the most sense strategically. Which might mean pulling military bases out of Europe entirely, as well as ending other commitments. I guess it could be argued that basing US forces in Greenland (as a US territory/state) would be preferable to Germany.
None of this is necessarily bad, but I think that he needs to deal with the stuff he campaigned on first, before indulging these types of things.
Post a Comment