Professor Susan Dunn writes at CNN:

By attacking our closest allies and their leaders and displaying obsequious deference to the virtual dictator Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump has repudiated American global leadership. He has replaced it with a hyper-nationalism and unilateralism that are less of a foreign policy and more the bullying tactics of a would-be strongman.

Trump’s “America First” isolationism is fast weakening and isolating the United States, undermining the stability of long-standing alliances, and allowing dictatorships to thrive unchallenged around the world.

Read the whole thing. But I confess to some confusion. Isn’t one of the central lessons of the last few decades that sometimes (often? always?) “allowing dictatorships to thrive unchallenged” is the best option among the set of bad choices? Does Dunn think it was a good idea to challenge the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi or Bashar al-Assad? Those actions by prior US presidents seem, to me, to have resulted in immense human suffering. Wouldn’t most readers agree that, however monstrous Hussein/Gaddafi/al-Assad were, we should have not gone to war with them? Honestly curious!

Print  •  Email