The Bill for America First Is Coming Due. America’s closest treaty allies exclude USannounced milit

[Denizen]

America first policy is experiencing blowback. Donald Trump is isolating America from its neighbors as well as military allies.

Donald Trump's real motive in America first policy was encouraging higher military spending by allies and more military adventurism by allies and to induce more spending on US manufactured war machines and munitions by allies.

Its not working as the allies are devising their own separate military strategies excluding the US.

"America’s friends are choosing to dissociate themselves, believing their interests are better served without American strength. It seems the rest of the world is losing faith that the U.S. is a reliable partner, sober and taking others’ interests into account as well as its own. The U.S. is ceasing to be a country that its allies come to for help solving problems. On the contrary, America’s allies think the U.S. is the cause of their increasingly tenuous security."

The current Middle East refugee chaos caused by US policy is costing Europe huge amounts of money and social angst.

America's allies are hoping Donald Trump gets run outta town in 2020 elections.

The Bill for America First Is Coming Due

The Bill for America First Is Coming Due
Two of America’s closest treaty allies have announced military efforts explicitly designed to exclude the U.S.
JUL 27, 2019
Kori Schake

In this crowded and enervating week of news, it would have been easy to miss two small but consequential signs of the damage President Donald Trump and his team have done to America’s standing in the world. Two of America’s closest treaty allies have announced military efforts explicitly designed to exclude the United States. Australia is “seeking to cement its status as the security partner of choice for Pacific nations” by establishing an expeditionary training force. And the United Kingdom wants to create a multinational force to ensure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

It’s not a coincidence that allies are striking out on their own. Countries in the Pacific worry that the U.S. is forcing them to choose between their economic connections to China and their security relationships with the U.S. And while forcing this choice, the U.S. is also publicly calling the security guarantees into question—President Trump did so before arriving in Japan for the G20 summit. Meanwhile, European allies blame Trump-administration tactics for Iran’s decision to lash out at shipping in the Gulf. That’s why British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt stressed that the purpose of the multinational force was to dissociate European governments from U.S. policy toward Iran. Hunt explicitly said, “It will not be part of the U.S. maximum pressure policy on Iran because we remain committed to preserving the Iran nuclear agreement.”

As it happens, these efforts are consistent with Trump’s insistence that allies do more for themselves. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo responded to news of the British initiative by saying, “The responsibility … falls to the United Kingdom to take care of their ships.”

The sad reality, however, is that America’s European allies cannot protect their ships without American help. Even the French Foreign Ministry had to admit that any European effort would “naturally have to be co-ordinated with the US on the operational level.” The International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates that it would cost European countries $110 billion to defend freedom of navigation. That is more than the annual defense budgets of Britain and France combined. It isn’t happening anytime soon, regardless of brave talk about “European strategic autonomy.”

Pacific nations, moreover, may not want Australian military training, for fear of antagonizing China when Australian security guarantees are not on offer, and wouldn’t suffice against a threat of China’s magnitude anyway.

An America Firster might not see much to dislike here. In the past 70 years, the U.S. has allowed more and more of the security burden to migrate from allies onto the U.S. Both of this week’s initiatives would relieve some pressure from U.S. forces as the U.S. tries to prioritize its efforts away from the Gulf to manage the China challenge. Both are undertaken by trusted American allies. They may prove to be the harbinger of a more balanced relationship among strong states of the West.

That would be a good outcome for the U.S.—but only if allies were choosing to do more consistent with American interests. They are not. The U.S. had a proposal for maritime patrols in the Gulf that its European allies declined to join. If the U.S. doesn’t act in concert with others, it will have less absolute power.
To take a financial example, European Union countries did not develop a so-called special-purpose vehicle for funding business with Iran to support American efforts—they are building means to circumvent dollar primacy because they object so strenuously to American policy on Iran. The SPV won’t succeed in the near term, but it shows that America’s European allies are so rattled by Trump’s Iran policy and so exasperated by the profligacy of U.S. sanctions that they’re looking to limit American financial power.

America’s friends are choosing to dissociate themselves, believing their interests are better served without American strength. It seems the rest of the world is losing faith that the U.S. is a reliable partner, sober and taking others’ interests into account as well as its own. The U.S. is ceasing to be a country that its allies come to for help solving problems. On the contrary, America’s allies think the U.S. is the cause of their increasingly tenuous security.

The Australian and British initiatives may not succeed. But the very fact of these proposals is proof that relations with close allies have frayed in systemically significant ways. This is what it looks like when the American-led international order comes to an end.

 

[theHawk]

Good, let them do their own shit. Why do we need to be holding their hands all the time?

 

[Vastator]

America first policy is experiencing blowback. Donald Trump is isolating America from its neighbors as well as military allies.

Donald Trump's real motive in America first policy was encouraging higher military spending by allies and more military adventurism by allies and to induce more spending on US manufactured war machines and munitions by allies.

Its not working as the allies are devising their own separate military strategies excluding the US.

"America’s friends are choosing to dissociate themselves, believing their interests are better served without American strength. It seems the rest of the world is losing faith that the U.S. is a reliable partner, sober and taking others’ interests into account as well as its own. The U.S. is ceasing to be a country that its allies come to for help solving problems. On the contrary, America’s allies think the U.S. is the cause of their increasingly tenuous security."

The current Middle East refugee chaos caused by US policy is costing Europe huge amounts of money and social angst.

America's allies are hoping Donald Trump gets run outta town in 2020 elections.

The Bill for America First Is Coming Due

The Bill for America First Is Coming Due
Two of America’s closest treaty allies have announced military efforts explicitly designed to exclude the U.S.
JUL 27, 2019
Kori Schake

In this crowded and enervating week of news, it would have been easy to miss two small but consequential signs of the damage President Donald Trump and his team have done to America’s standing in the world. Two of America’s closest treaty allies have announced military efforts explicitly designed to exclude the United States. Australia is “seeking to cement its status as the security partner of choice for Pacific nations” by establishing an expeditionary training force. And the United Kingdom wants to create a multinational force to ensure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

It’s not a coincidence that allies are striking out on their own. Countries in the Pacific worry that the U.S. is forcing them to choose between their economic connections to China and their security relationships with the U.S. And while forcing this choice, the U.S. is also publicly calling the security guarantees into question—President Trump did so before arriving in Japan for the G20 summit. Meanwhile, European allies blame Trump-administration tactics for Iran’s decision to lash out at shipping in the Gulf. That’s why British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt stressed that the purpose of the multinational force was to dissociate European governments from U.S. policy toward Iran. Hunt explicitly said, “It will not be part of the U.S. maximum pressure policy on Iran because we remain committed to preserving the Iran nuclear agreement.”

As it happens, these efforts are consistent with Trump’s insistence that allies do more for themselves. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo responded to news of the British initiative by saying, “The responsibility … falls to the United Kingdom to take care of their ships.”

The sad reality, however, is that America’s European allies cannot protect their ships without American help. Even the French Foreign Ministry had to admit that any European effort would “naturally have to be co-ordinated with the US on the operational level.” The International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates that it would cost European countries $110 billion to defend freedom of navigation. That is more than the annual defense budgets of Britain and France combined. It isn’t happening anytime soon, regardless of brave talk about “European strategic autonomy.”

Pacific nations, moreover, may not want Australian military training, for fear of antagonizing China when Australian security guarantees are not on offer, and wouldn’t suffice against a threat of China’s magnitude anyway.

An America Firster might not see much to dislike here. In the past 70 years, the U.S. has allowed more and more of the security burden to migrate from allies onto the U.S. Both of this week’s initiatives would relieve some pressure from U.S. forces as the U.S. tries to prioritize its efforts away from the Gulf to manage the China challenge. Both are undertaken by trusted American allies. They may prove to be the harbinger of a more balanced relationship among strong states of the West.

That would be a good outcome for the U.S.—but only if allies were choosing to do more consistent with American interests. They are not. The U.S. had a proposal for maritime patrols in the Gulf that its European allies declined to join. If the U.S. doesn’t act in concert with others, it will have less absolute power.
To take a financial example, European Union countries did not develop a so-called special-purpose vehicle for funding business with Iran to support American efforts—they are building means to circumvent dollar primacy because they object so strenuously to American policy on Iran. The SPV won’t succeed in the near term, but it shows that America’s European allies are so rattled by Trump’s Iran policy and so exasperated by the profligacy of U.S. sanctions that they’re looking to limit American financial power.

America’s friends are choosing to dissociate themselves, believing their interests are better served without American strength. It seems the rest of the world is losing faith that the U.S. is a reliable partner, sober and taking others’ interests into account as well as its own. The U.S. is ceasing to be a country that its allies come to for help solving problems. On the contrary, America’s allies think the U.S. is the cause of their increasingly tenuous security.

The Australian and British initiatives may not succeed. But the very fact of these proposals is proof that relations with close allies have frayed in systemically significant ways. This is what it looks like when the American-led international order comes to an end.

Good. Our founders were against foreign entanglement. And they've benefitted from us, far more than we ever have from them. Let them fill body bags.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Trump’s foreign policy is as reckless and irresponsible as his domestic policy.

 

[Maxdeath]

So you believe that we should increase our national debt so that we can send money overseas? You think that we should send more of our young to die on foreign soil? We spent to rebuild Europe and what did we get in return? Germany spends next to nothing in NATO and then wants to buy natural gas from Russia. When we went into Iraq the so called friends that did not want us there were buying oil in spite of a UN embargo.

 

[Sunni Man]

Our wonderful Pres. Trump is the best thing to happen to this country in decades.

He deserves to be praised and admired by all citizens for his unselfish service and dedication to the nation.

Only miscreants and malcontents will deny this fact. ....

 

[Dragonlady]

Good, let them do their own shit. Why do we need to be holding their hands all the time?

Europe, and in particular Germany, have long been footing the bill for the continuing refugee crisis resulting from American foreign policy. Germany took in one million Syrian refugees. 5 million fled Syria. Canada took in 25,000 Syrian refugees. The US took none.

The costs of US foreign policy are not just found in military spending. Americans have been waging war and creating refugees the world over since WWII, and then walking away while others take in the victims and take care of them.

The Central American refugees being just the latest group to trust Americans and get screwed over.

 

[fncceo]

The US took none.

We win.

 

[Sunni Man]

The current refuge problem in Europe has its roots from almost two centuries ago when England, France, Germany, and England, colonized the Middle East and Africa.

To blame the U.S.for the problem is disingenuous and misleading. ....

 

[cnm]

So you believe that we should increase our national debt so that we can send money overseas? You think that we should send more of our young to die on foreign soil?

I love it. The tears of reactionary victim hood are so sweet. Guess which country is the only one to have called on NATO allies and had them die on its behalf.

 

[cnm]

To blame the U.S. is disingenuous and misleading

After all, it's not as though the US set the ME of fire with the illegal invasion of Iraq.

 

[cnm]

The US took none.

We win.

The battle, maybe. The war though?

 

[Aletheia4u]

America first policy is experiencing blowback. Donald Trump is isolating America from its neighbors as well as military allies.

Donald Trump's real motive in America first policy was encouraging higher military spending by allies and more military adventurism by allies and to induce more spending on US manufactured war machines and munitions by allies.

Its not working as the allies are devising their own separate military strategies excluding the US.

"America’s friends are choosing to dissociate themselves, believing their interests are better served without American strength. It seems the rest of the world is losing faith that the U.S. is a reliable partner, sober and taking others’ interests into account as well as its own. The U.S. is ceasing to be a country that its allies come to for help solving problems. On the contrary, America’s allies think the U.S. is the cause of their increasingly tenuous security."

The current Middle East refugee chaos caused by US policy is costing Europe huge amounts of money and social angst.

America's allies are hoping Donald Trump gets run outta town in 2020 elections.

The Bill for America First Is Coming Due

The Bill for America First Is Coming Due
Two of America’s closest treaty allies have announced military efforts explicitly designed to exclude the U.S.
JUL 27, 2019
Kori Schake

In this crowded and enervating week of news, it would have been easy to miss two small but consequential signs of the damage President Donald Trump and his team have done to America’s standing in the world. Two of America’s closest treaty allies have announced military efforts explicitly designed to exclude the United States. Australia is “seeking to cement its status as the security partner of choice for Pacific nations” by establishing an expeditionary training force. And the United Kingdom wants to create a multinational force to ensure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

It’s not a coincidence that allies are striking out on their own. Countries in the Pacific worry that the U.S. is forcing them to choose between their economic connections to China and their security relationships with the U.S. And while forcing this choice, the U.S. is also publicly calling the security guarantees into question—President Trump did so before arriving in Japan for the G20 summit. Meanwhile, European allies blame Trump-administration tactics for Iran’s decision to lash out at shipping in the Gulf. That’s why British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt stressed that the purpose of the multinational force was to dissociate European governments from U.S. policy toward Iran. Hunt explicitly said, “It will not be part of the U.S. maximum pressure policy on Iran because we remain committed to preserving the Iran nuclear agreement.”

As it happens, these efforts are consistent with Trump’s insistence that allies do more for themselves. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo responded to news of the British initiative by saying, “The responsibility … falls to the United Kingdom to take care of their ships.”

The sad reality, however, is that America’s European allies cannot protect their ships without American help. Even the French Foreign Ministry had to admit that any European effort would “naturally have to be co-ordinated with the US on the operational level.” The International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates that it would cost European countries $110 billion to defend freedom of navigation. That is more than the annual defense budgets of Britain and France combined. It isn’t happening anytime soon, regardless of brave talk about “European strategic autonomy.”

Pacific nations, moreover, may not want Australian military training, for fear of antagonizing China when Australian security guarantees are not on offer, and wouldn’t suffice against a threat of China’s magnitude anyway.

An America Firster might not see much to dislike here. In the past 70 years, the U.S. has allowed more and more of the security burden to migrate from allies onto the U.S. Both of this week’s initiatives would relieve some pressure from U.S. forces as the U.S. tries to prioritize its efforts away from the Gulf to manage the China challenge. Both are undertaken by trusted American allies. They may prove to be the harbinger of a more balanced relationship among strong states of the West.

That would be a good outcome for the U.S.—but only if allies were choosing to do more consistent with American interests. They are not. The U.S. had a proposal for maritime patrols in the Gulf that its European allies declined to join. If the U.S. doesn’t act in concert with others, it will have less absolute power.
To take a financial example, European Union countries did not develop a so-called special-purpose vehicle for funding business with Iran to support American efforts—they are building means to circumvent dollar primacy because they object so strenuously to American policy on Iran. The SPV won’t succeed in the near term, but it shows that America’s European allies are so rattled by Trump’s Iran policy and so exasperated by the profligacy of U.S. sanctions that they’re looking to limit American financial power.

America’s friends are choosing to dissociate themselves, believing their interests are better served without American strength. It seems the rest of the world is losing faith that the U.S. is a reliable partner, sober and taking others’ interests into account as well as its own. The U.S. is ceasing to be a country that its allies come to for help solving problems. On the contrary, America’s allies think the U.S. is the cause of their increasingly tenuous security.

The Australian and British initiatives may not succeed. But the very fact of these proposals is proof that relations with close allies have frayed in systemically significant ways. This is what it looks like when the American-led international order comes to an end.

Pres.Trump needs to remove the U.S. from out of the U.N. The U.S. is a independent nation that do not need other nations to tell the U.S. what to do. All other nations' leaders are treating the U.S. as a Sugar Daddy. That they take all what they can from the U.S. and give nothing back in return. The Globalist has been letting other countries to leech off the tax payers. And it is the tax payer's money, and the people should decide on whether what they want to be done with their own money. and so Pres.Trump needs to keep this nation first, until it is fully restore. To prevent other countries from squeezing all the juice that they can get from the U.S.

https://www.theblaze.com/contributi...sidency-get-the-u-s-out-of-the-united-nations



The militarization of local police, combined with the arrival of a United Nations military presence, could mean big trouble for liberty and freedom here in America.

U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power told attendees at an important U.N. meeting that the United States was “proud” and “humbled” to be a included in the new agenda and promised to follow by the 18 pledges. Fox News

The arrival of the United Nations requires federalization of police in order to set a global standard of law enforcement. President Barack Obama has pounced on the opportunity to exploit recent shootings to push for the federalization of local police forces.

Videos have been flooding the internet documenting United Nations military-like vehicles moving across America.

And this would not the be the first time American politicians have attempted to sell their citizens out to the powers of the United Nations. The UN’s first attempt to capture America was in 1951. In strange fashion, forces flying the flag of the United Nations began to occupy small towns and cities across the United States. This was intended to test the will of the people and see if they would accept a UN “takeover.” The test failed and sparked controversy and concerns over a “revolution-in-the-making” that would destroy any plot formulated by the Council on Foreign Relations and the United Nations.
Executive Order: United Nations allowed to use Force on US Citizens

 

[Third Party]

America first policy is experiencing blowback. Donald Trump is isolating America from its neighbors as well as military allies.

Donald Trump's real motive in America first policy was encouraging higher military spending by allies and more military adventurism by allies and to induce more spending on US manufactured war machines and munitions by allies.

Its not working as the allies are devising their own separate military strategies excluding the US.

"America’s friends are choosing to dissociate themselves, believing their interests are better served without American strength. It seems the rest of the world is losing faith that the U.S. is a reliable partner, sober and taking others’ interests into account as well as its own. The U.S. is ceasing to be a country that its allies come to for help solving problems. On the contrary, America’s allies think the U.S. is the cause of their increasingly tenuous security."

The current Middle East refugee chaos caused by US policy is costing Europe huge amounts of money and social angst.

America's allies are hoping Donald Trump gets run outta town in 2020 elections.

The Bill for America First Is Coming Due

The Bill for America First Is Coming Due
Two of America’s closest treaty allies have announced military efforts explicitly designed to exclude the U.S.
JUL 27, 2019
Kori Schake

In this crowded and enervating week of news, it would have been easy to miss two small but consequential signs of the damage President Donald Trump and his team have done to America’s standing in the world. Two of America’s closest treaty allies have announced military efforts explicitly designed to exclude the United States. Australia is “seeking to cement its status as the security partner of choice for Pacific nations” by establishing an expeditionary training force. And the United Kingdom wants to create a multinational force to ensure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

It’s not a coincidence that allies are striking out on their own. Countries in the Pacific worry that the U.S. is forcing them to choose between their economic connections to China and their security relationships with the U.S. And while forcing this choice, the U.S. is also publicly calling the security guarantees into question—President Trump did so before arriving in Japan for the G20 summit. Meanwhile, European allies blame Trump-administration tactics for Iran’s decision to lash out at shipping in the Gulf. That’s why British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt stressed that the purpose of the multinational force was to dissociate European governments from U.S. policy toward Iran. Hunt explicitly said, “It will not be part of the U.S. maximum pressure policy on Iran because we remain committed to preserving the Iran nuclear agreement.”

As it happens, these efforts are consistent with Trump’s insistence that allies do more for themselves. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo responded to news of the British initiative by saying, “The responsibility … falls to the United Kingdom to take care of their ships.”

The sad reality, however, is that America’s European allies cannot protect their ships without American help. Even the French Foreign Ministry had to admit that any European effort would “naturally have to be co-ordinated with the US on the operational level.” The International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates that it would cost European countries $110 billion to defend freedom of navigation. That is more than the annual defense budgets of Britain and France combined. It isn’t happening anytime soon, regardless of brave talk about “European strategic autonomy.”

Pacific nations, moreover, may not want Australian military training, for fear of antagonizing China when Australian security guarantees are not on offer, and wouldn’t suffice against a threat of China’s magnitude anyway.

An America Firster might not see much to dislike here. In the past 70 years, the U.S. has allowed more and more of the security burden to migrate from allies onto the U.S. Both of this week’s initiatives would relieve some pressure from U.S. forces as the U.S. tries to prioritize its efforts away from the Gulf to manage the China challenge. Both are undertaken by trusted American allies. They may prove to be the harbinger of a more balanced relationship among strong states of the West.

That would be a good outcome for the U.S.—but only if allies were choosing to do more consistent with American interests. They are not. The U.S. had a proposal for maritime patrols in the Gulf that its European allies declined to join. If the U.S. doesn’t act in concert with others, it will have less absolute power.
To take a financial example, European Union countries did not develop a so-called special-purpose vehicle for funding business with Iran to support American efforts—they are building means to circumvent dollar primacy because they object so strenuously to American policy on Iran. The SPV won’t succeed in the near term, but it shows that America’s European allies are so rattled by Trump’s Iran policy and so exasperated by the profligacy of U.S. sanctions that they’re looking to limit American financial power.

America’s friends are choosing to dissociate themselves, believing their interests are better served without American strength. It seems the rest of the world is losing faith that the U.S. is a reliable partner, sober and taking others’ interests into account as well as its own. The U.S. is ceasing to be a country that its allies come to for help solving problems. On the contrary, America’s allies think the U.S. is the cause of their increasingly tenuous security.

The Australian and British initiatives may not succeed. But the very fact of these proposals is proof that relations with close allies have frayed in systemically significant ways. This is what it looks like when the American-led international order comes to an end.

Good. Our "allies" have not been good to us.

 

[cnm]

I can't see the British effort succeeding. The Europeans will pay lip service to the idea of unity but laugh at the idea of supporting the result of Britain's ludicrous attempts to curry favour with the US. None of their ships are being hijacked.

 

[cnm]

Good. Our "allies" have not been good to us.

They've only died for you as the only country to have called on NATO support. The bastards.

 

[toobfreak]

America first policy is experiencing blowback. Donald Trump is isolating America from its neighbors

Is he? Is Trump really ISOLATING us from our neighbors or merely extricating them from our pockets being dependent on us?
Is Trump really ISOLATING us from our neighbors or merely just expecting that we actually be treated like our own sovereign nation with its own borders just as they expect?
I think Trump would be HAPPY to live and work with any country on this planet, if they simply give us the same respect for and same trade as they expect in return.

 

[harmonica]

America first policy is experiencing blowback. Donald Trump is isolating America from its neighbors as well as military allies.

Donald Trump's real motive in America first policy was encouraging higher military spending by allies and more military adventurism by allies and to induce more spending on US manufactured war machines and munitions by allies.

Its not working as the allies are devising their own separate military strategies excluding the US.

"America’s friends are choosing to dissociate themselves, believing their interests are better served without American strength. It seems the rest of the world is losing faith that the U.S. is a reliable partner, sober and taking others’ interests into account as well as its own. The U.S. is ceasing to be a country that its allies come to for help solving problems. On the contrary, America’s allies think the U.S. is the cause of their increasingly tenuous security."

The current Middle East refugee chaos caused by US policy is costing Europe huge amounts of money and social angst.

America's allies are hoping Donald Trump gets run outta town in 2020 elections.

The Bill for America First Is Coming Due

The Bill for America First Is Coming Due
Two of America’s closest treaty allies have announced military efforts explicitly designed to exclude the U.S.
JUL 27, 2019
Kori Schake

In this crowded and enervating week of news, it would have been easy to miss two small but consequential signs of the damage President Donald Trump and his team have done to America’s standing in the world. Two of America’s closest treaty allies have announced military efforts explicitly designed to exclude the United States. Australia is “seeking to cement its status as the security partner of choice for Pacific nations” by establishing an expeditionary training force. And the United Kingdom wants to create a multinational force to ensure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

It’s not a coincidence that allies are striking out on their own. Countries in the Pacific worry that the U.S. is forcing them to choose between their economic connections to China and their security relationships with the U.S. And while forcing this choice, the U.S. is also publicly calling the security guarantees into question—President Trump did so before arriving in Japan for the G20 summit. Meanwhile, European allies blame Trump-administration tactics for Iran’s decision to lash out at shipping in the Gulf. That’s why British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt stressed that the purpose of the multinational force was to dissociate European governments from U.S. policy toward Iran. Hunt explicitly said, “It will not be part of the U.S. maximum pressure policy on Iran because we remain committed to preserving the Iran nuclear agreement.”

As it happens, these efforts are consistent with Trump’s insistence that allies do more for themselves. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo responded to news of the British initiative by saying, “The responsibility … falls to the United Kingdom to take care of their ships.”

The sad reality, however, is that America’s European allies cannot protect their ships without American help. Even the French Foreign Ministry had to admit that any European effort would “naturally have to be co-ordinated with the US on the operational level.” The International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates that it would cost European countries $110 billion to defend freedom of navigation. That is more than the annual defense budgets of Britain and France combined. It isn’t happening anytime soon, regardless of brave talk about “European strategic autonomy.”

Pacific nations, moreover, may not want Australian military training, for fear of antagonizing China when Australian security guarantees are not on offer, and wouldn’t suffice against a threat of China’s magnitude anyway.

An America Firster might not see much to dislike here. In the past 70 years, the U.S. has allowed more and more of the security burden to migrate from allies onto the U.S. Both of this week’s initiatives would relieve some pressure from U.S. forces as the U.S. tries to prioritize its efforts away from the Gulf to manage the China challenge. Both are undertaken by trusted American allies. They may prove to be the harbinger of a more balanced relationship among strong states of the West.

That would be a good outcome for the U.S.—but only if allies were choosing to do more consistent with American interests. They are not. The U.S. had a proposal for maritime patrols in the Gulf that its European allies declined to join. If the U.S. doesn’t act in concert with others, it will have less absolute power.
To take a financial example, European Union countries did not develop a so-called special-purpose vehicle for funding business with Iran to support American efforts—they are building means to circumvent dollar primacy because they object so strenuously to American policy on Iran. The SPV won’t succeed in the near term, but it shows that America’s European allies are so rattled by Trump’s Iran policy and so exasperated by the profligacy of U.S. sanctions that they’re looking to limit American financial power.

America’s friends are choosing to dissociate themselves, believing their interests are better served without American strength. It seems the rest of the world is losing faith that the U.S. is a reliable partner, sober and taking others’ interests into account as well as its own. The U.S. is ceasing to be a country that its allies come to for help solving problems. On the contrary, America’s allies think the U.S. is the cause of their increasingly tenuous security.

The Australian and British initiatives may not succeed. But the very fact of these proposals is proof that relations with close allies have frayed in systemically significant ways. This is what it looks like when the American-led international order comes to an end.

the Europeans LOVE Trumps immigration policies--you have it BACKWARDS
hahahahahhahahahahah

 

[fncceo]

The US took none.

We win.

The battle, maybe. The war though?

Blaming the US for the problems of the Middle East is like blaming Michael Eisner Disney's 'Black Cauldron' (1985).

The region was a hot wet mess for the past 2,000 years and while America hasn't made things any better, they certainly haven't buggered it any worse.

The fact is, the Middle East has been a chessboard for major powers since the days of the Assyrians.

The idea that living in a shite hole, however much sympathy we can have for those what do, gives anyone a free ticket to the First World welfare system, is insane.

We aren't going to solve the problems of the world by letting the problems move into our homes.

 

[Denizen]

So you believe that we should increase our national debt so that we can send money overseas? You think that we should send more of our young to die on foreign soil? We spent to rebuild Europe and what did we get in return? Germany spends next to nothing in NATO and then wants to buy natural gas from Russia. When we went into Iraq the so called friends that did not want us there were buying oil in spite of a UN embargo.

Are dead Arabs a sustainable resource?