In his speech, billed as a major foreign policy speech, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington D.C., Trump said he was against nation building, but then quickly added that he was in favor of using U.S. might to bring "stability" to the world..@realDonaldTrump rejects GLOBALISM , outlines a muscular American Foreign Policy https://t.co/Cj2eQCtgJ7— Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) April 27, 2016
He said a Trump administration would mean a properly armed U.S. military. He seemed to indicate that he would increase the number of active U.S military personnel, the number of ships in the Navy and the number of planes in the Air Force.
He was so hawkish that neocon Jonah Goldberg in the Trump-hating necon journal, the National Review, came to write:Trump’s Foreign Policy Speech: Not Horrible.
Goldberg went on:
[H]e articulated a serious and legitimate worldview and gave voters and policymakers a sense of where he’s coming from on foreign policy.Ann Coulter, who I would love to set up on a blind date with Glenn Beck, took the solemn road:
During the speech that almost surpassed Washington's, Trump said that Iran could not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.GREATEST FOREIGN POLICY SPEECH SINCE WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL ADDRESS.— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) April 27, 2016
He decried that President Obama halted the U.S. missile defense deployment along the Russian border in Poland and the Czech Republic.
He hinted that it might be necessary to bomb, or perhaps put sanctions on Libya and that the use of US Military forces might be required against ISIS.
And he warned that "it is a more dangerous world than ever."
He said the U.S. had serious differences with China and Russia but would be willing to "try" negotiations with Russia,
He also said that NATO had to be reformed to deal with the migrant crisis and Islamic terrorism.
And added again, "I will not hesitate to deploy U.S. troops."
Bottom line: Although Trump is against nation building, this should not be taken to mean that he is not militaristic.
The man sees a very hostile world where unlike Washington, he sees a need to meddle overseas, using, when he deems it necessary, the United States military to take on perceived threats, almost all completely imaginary.
ISIS is a near zero threat to the United States, as is Iran. His notion that the U.S. should possibly bomb Libya is stunning. And is Trump suggesting that as president he would attempt to build a missile defense on the border with Russia?
The idea to reform NATO to fight migrants and ISIS is equally stunning. To be sure, Europe has a migrant problem, mostly of its own doing, Why should the U.S. meddle in this?
Reformulating NATO to "fight" a migrant problem suggests the tracking of all European citizens, a most horrific idea.
To be sure, many of the other presidential candidates display a bellicose streak, but none of them come close to Trump in "creative meddling" and nome of them appear to have the Trump personality that seems built at its very foundation on never backing down.
Who other than Trump has been so creative as to call for a reformulation of NATO?
Who other than Trump has displayed no desire to back down or apologize, ever?
Who other than Trump has stated boldly that he would use the military when necessary?
The only place he seems to fall in line with the other candidates is his willingness to hug Israel even though Israel has fewer delegates than the Northern Marianas Islands. Have you heard Trump mention the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (9 delegates)?
There seems to be less and less attractive about Trump the more his thinking and policy positions become clear. He has no grand philosophy or principles on foreign issues or domestic issues. He operates under the Führer principle, and we know how that turns out when it is used.
I see no reason for libertarians to support Trump. None.
He has no libertarian qualities and seems to have a determined will and a strong following that would support him as he launched into laying down his specific Führer principles.