John Bolton Cheers on Donald Trump Foreign Policy

Here is a serious problem for libertarian fanboys. I'm talking serious.

The most hardcore warmongering neocon, John Bolton, in an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal, is cheering on Donald Trump's foreign policy.

Bolton writes:

Had one of Donald Trump’s Republican opponents during the campaign for the GOP nomination given the same speech on combating global terrorism he gave last week, it would have raised few eyebrows....the speech’s overall analysis fits well within mainstream conservative and Republican thinking.

Some Trump opponents and supporters alike will be distressed by this news, but the speech visibly sharpens the contradictions with Hillary Clinton, who clearly would continue President Obama’s nonstrategy concerning radical Islam—now confirmed to include paying ransom for hostages. More broadly, the speech underlines why terrorism and other grave national-security threats should take center stage in the presidential race.

Mr. Trump rightly sees an ideological war being waged against the West by a hateful, millenarian obsession targeting core American constitutional and philosophical principles. From that assessment flow several policy consequences, most important the imperative to destroy the terrorist threat rapidly and comprehensively before it kills and maims more innocent people. Mr. Trump correctly argues that, in combating Islamic State, al Qaeda and others, “we must use ideological warfare” as well as stronger military and intelligence operations, and be “a friend to all moderate Muslim reformers.”..

 In contrast, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton still believe terrorism is a law-enforcement issue.

Bolton gets it:

[W]hether Mr. Trump is “interventionist” or “noninterventionist” in his proclivities is really a nonissue...

Bolton recognizes Trump as a fellow warrior. He doesn't want to go to war to nation build, but he does want to go to war. In this way, Bolton sees Trump, correctly, as another George H.W. Bush (my bold):

 On nation building, the debate is confused, with many advocates mistakenly conflating it with “intervention.” The two are different. President George H.W. Bush’s November 1992 decision to intervene militarily in anarchic Somalia, and his successor Bill Clinton’s far-different policies, highlight the distinction.

Agree or disagree with President Bush’s Somalia intervention, he precisely defined his limited objective of opening channels for humanitarian supplies. Although the military operations were blessed by the United Nations Security Council, Mr. Bush was always clear that they would be under U.S. command.... 

Mr. Trump isn’t committing heresy by saying America’s recent attempts at nation-building haven’t ended well. He’s telling the truth.

Of course, the Bolton view (and the Trump view) is that the non-nation building military task at hand is much greater than the Somalia military operation. It's the H.W. non-nation building blueprint on a much grander scale. To take on " Islamic State, al Qaeda and others." 

Bolton isn't going to the pages of WSJ with such talk unless he is very comfortable with what he expects out of a Trump administration. Not good.

If that is not enough, Trump has stated that Bolton may have a role in a Trump administration. 

Attention "Libertarians for Trump," John Bolton just nuked you!

  -RW