Year End Reflections, Part VI (Trump's First Year - Foreign Policy)

As far as I can tell, none of the terrible consequences - both foreign and domestic - feared and predicted by the Left, that were to have flowed from a Trump Presidency, have come to fruition. Nevertheless, the mainstream media still views the Trump Presidency as a disaster. The 12/26/17 LA Times main front page headline read: "Foreign leaders say U.S. losing stature." The 12/29/17 NY Times front page headline read: "Insurgent President Alters, Unpredictably, America's Global Role." So, let's take a look.

Not surprisingly, one of the liberal media's main concerns was Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital city, especially after the UN General Assembly voted to demand that the United States rescind its decision recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital. The vote was 128 to 9, with 35 abstentions. And, our Western European "allies" in the UK, France and Germany voted with the likes of China, Russia and the 57 nation Islamic block. Unlike Obama, willing to defer on US sovereignty to international organizations, Trump is not. Why should the UN get to decide where the USA puts its embassy? This is the same UN that once declared "Zionism" to be racism; a decision only reversed later on through the efforts of the US.

Our UN Ambassador, Nikki Haley, said this after the vote: "We will remember (this vote) when we are called upon to once again make the world's largest contribution to the United Nations. And we will remember it when so many countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit." Thereafter, the US announced a $285 million cut in our contribution to the UN. Said one commentator in the Wall Street Journal: "Diplomacy based on denying reality isn't helpful." In true conservative fashion, Trump acknowledged the reality of Jerusalem as Israel's historic and religious capital. The Leftist media and Europeans would prefer to continue the appeasement of the Palestinians, as if that appeasement has actually moved the parties closer towards peace.

Both the LA and NY Times suggested that Trump's Jerusalem decision was nothing more than a pandering to his base. The NY Times: "...evangelicals and some hard-line, pro-Israel American Jews exulted..." Actually, unlike his predecessors, Trump actually kept his campaign promise. By doing so, he also fulfilled a 1995 Congressional measure passed overwhelmingly by the House (374 to 37) and the Senate (93 to 5) calling for the relocation of the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

The NY Times: "The president takes credit for eradicating the caliphate built by the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq,, though he mainly accelerated a battle plan developed by President Barack Obama." What utter nonsense! Trump "takes credit for...?" No, Trump deserves the credit for eradicating ISIS from the territory they had held in Iraq and Syria. He followed Obama's plan? Then how come in 8 years Obama could not succeed against ISIS? No, Trump made a campaign pledge to destroy ISIS in their strongholds. Another campaign promise kept.

The LA Times quotes with favor one Iranian commentator as follows: "Now Russia is celebrating its victory in Syria, and America is watching as an onlooker." Very confusing. The left-wing media cannot seem to decide if the US should withdraw from Middle East entanglements or get more involved. Wasn't it Obama who said that Syrian use of chemical weapons would be a red line, which, if the Syrians crossed, would not be tolerated? Well, they crossed it - and Obama did nothing. Trump, on the other hand, had 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles sent into Syria. Not a devastating blow, but a clear message that there are consequences.

Meanwhile, the NY Times frets over the reactions of the Europeans to Trump. They quote Angela Merkel: "We Europeans must really take our destiny into our own hands. The times in which we can fully count on others - they are somewhat over." Is there a reason they are not able to take care of themselves? Britain and France are nuclear powers. Germany is an economic powerhouse. And, succeeding where his predecessors have failed, thanks to Trump the Europeans are starting to increase their monetary contributions to NATO.

As for North Korea, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson wrote in an Op-Ed in the 12/28/17 New York Times, Trump "abandoned the failed policy of strategic patience." Says Tillerson: "This year, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted three of the strongest sanctions resolutions in history...Our peaceful pressure campaign has cut off roughly 90 percent of North Korea's export revenue, much of which is used to fund illegal weapons development." As for Trump's name calling exchanges with Kim Jong-un - I've said before I've never been fond of the name calling. But who knows? Maybe the Korean dictator fears a tough talker such as Trump; and fear can often change minds.

Of course, while there are many other topics that could be discussed under the "foreign policy" umbrella, I cannot end this post without a discussion of Russia. Trump's recently released national security strategy paper "accused the Russians of using 'subversion' as a tactic and said that countering both rival (Russia and China) powers was necessary" (from the LA Times). But, the Times then asserts "Trump's refusal to overtly criticize Russia, some diplomats say, has emboldened Putin in his military actions in Ukraine." I'm trying to not laugh too hard. It was Obama and Hillary who had the "reset" with Russia. It was Obama who mocked Romney for calling Russia the greatest geopolitical threat to the US. It was Obama who told Medvedev to tell Putin that he (Obama) would have more "flexibility" after his reelection.

Obama stood by and did nothing when Russia invaded Ukraine. Did Obama's criticizing of Russia deter Putin? Of course not. Yet, the LA Times seems to believe that some harsh words from Trump would produce a different result. Russia supports Syria's Assad. Obama did not nothing to Russia's client state after they used chemical weapons. Trump sent in cruise missiles. Which one was more likely to upset Russia? Trump has now announced the US will send Javelin antitank missiles to Ukraine, to aid in their fight against Russian backed forces. Anyone think that such action enamors the US in Putin's eyes?

Overall, Trump has had a successful foreign policy first year. But notice how the mainstream media spins their front page "news" stories in order to reflect negatively on Trump. At what point does left-wing spin become "fake" news?