Aside from bellicose rhetoric he's been at worst status quo and perhaps notably less hawkish than his predecessors let alone Hillary. We're not entangled in any new conflicts yet and Syria is wrapping up neatly so I don't think you can really call a continuation of the Obama Doctrine as any more hawkish, but Trump has notably failed to intervene in Myanmar as the Rohingyas are being massacred, effectively committing the same 'mistake' as Clinton in Darfur.

Now we know Trump's stated ideology doesn't match the Obama doctrine and is far less interventionalist, but I'm not sure how we can really measure the absence of conflict because its not like Obama's run where I can point to each specific conflict and say how it demonstrates his policy, here I'm pointing to the lack of events while pointing out how Trump's stated reticence towards opening cans of worms is so blatantly at odds with his twitter feed on little rocket man

change the definition of something you can get any result you want

This post was edited by excellence on Dec 14 2017 10:14pm

yeah delegating authority vs centralizing the executive powers =/= a measure of hawkishness
its a measure of authoritarianism.

There's no relation between authoritarianism and hawkishness. Is Xi Jinping about to invade and annex thailand?

Oh yeah.

All the computer parts we use come from China and from Thailand. It's a smart move on China's part, and it would be a dumb move for us to let him.

Status quo American foreign policy is hawkish, and I don't think we can just put aside a president's rhetoric, even when that president is known to speak in hyperbole. Trump has increased the troop levels in Afghanistan. Yes, Syria continues to wind down, I don't think there's good reason to think that wouldn't happen under a president Clinton. He's punted the Iran deal to congress, which is a move praised by hawks. He doesn't seem interested in empowering the State Department or his SoS, which may just point to his ignorant isolationism more than his hawkishness, because he doesn't realize if these problems aren't solved diplomatically they'll have to be solved militarily.

Trump hasn't faced the same circumstances as Bush or Obama... so far he hasn't really had a clear cut situation where past presidents would've intervened. Trump's instincts are non-interventionist, I agree, but he's surrounded himself with status quo national security officials who want to arm Ukraine and increase our presence in the Middle East.

when assad used chemical weapons in syria, trump only took symbolic and cautious action by sending some targeted cruise missiles from a safe distance.

and even by doing just that, trump already sent a stronger signal than obama ever did. by doing this, trump sent a signal to the world that - unlike with his predecessor - if you cross his red lines, your shit is gonna get blown up.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Dec 15 2017 06:07am

I think Trump's strike in Syria was a good move(I'm still skeptical that Assad actually ordered the use of chemical weapons again). Obama manged to work with the Russians to get most of the chemical weapons stockpiles out of Syria. I'll take diplomacy over a military solution if it accomplishes the same objective.

whenever i head the phrase "sent a stronger signal than obama ever did" i always have a laugh. the dude is famous in an entire region for his drone campaign, but because he never dropped the MOAB he was always "scared".... For an undercover muslim he's really unpopular in the muslim world.

obama ordered a lot of drone strikes, but acted cowardly when it came to defending the red lines that he himself had drawn on the political stage. essentially, he went for the worst of both worlds: a hard and violent stance on small, weak and often times civilian targets, coupled with weakness and a lack of credibility on the grand stage.

i quite agree that the red line was a mistake, i just think it's overvalued in its impact. the dude is notorious as a ruthless drone commander, so saying "stronger message than Obama ever sent" seems silly. he sent a REALLY strong message overall, and sent one message of distinct weakness. all that really told people is that the US army wouldnt roll in to defend lines, but that drones would be more than happy to and that air strike bombing runs can and will increase when need be. to categorize his middle eastern policy as anything but ruthless, let alone scared, is silly.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Dec 15 2017 08:56am