We begin today’s roundup with The New York Times and its take on Donald Trump’s latest foreign policy speech:
Far from coherent analysis of the threat of Islamic extremism and a plausible blueprint for action, the speech was a collection of confused and random thoughts that showed little understanding of the rise of the Islamic State and often conflicted with the historical record.
Meanwhile, with terrorism as his central focus, Mr. Trump doubled down on the anti-refugee themes that have dominated his campaign, dressing them up as a national security issue. He proposed a new “extreme vetting” approach to immigration that would impose an ideological test on newcomers and undermine the very American values of tolerance and equal treatment that he said he wanted to encourage. He also called for the creation of a commission that would “expose the networks in our society that support radicalization,” which struck many listeners as an uncomfortable echo of McCarthyism.
The Economist:
In his Ohio speech Mr Trump claimed, falsely, to have opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq from the very start, then called Mr Obama “incompetent” for withdrawing troops too fast from Iraq. He scolded the “Obama-Clinton group” for toppling the Qaddafi regime in Libya (though he actually praised that overthrow at the time). Mr Trump simultaneously grumbled that the Obama administration had both betrayed Reaganite ideas about freedom, and naively thought that democracy could ever be brought to such countries as Iraq.
Molly O’Toole at Foreign Policy points out that Trump’s “plan” includes some of what Presdient Obama is already doing to defeat ISIS, plus a bunch more illegal and inaccurate stuff:
[G]iven the opportunity to show that continued controversial statements on foreign policy issues are a distraction from a serious campaign rather than its substance, the New York businessman either seemed to borrow heavily from the president he just last week said “founded” ISIS, or described actions that were divorced from reality. [...]
Trump repeatedly claims he had always opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, drawing a contrast with Hillary Clinton, who voted in favor of it while a New York senator. The Republican — like Clinton’s Democratic primary rival, Bernie Sanders — argues that Clinton’s backing for the war shows that she has bad judgement when it comes to vital national security and foreign policy issues.
But the Manhattan real estate magnate is on the record saying he was for the Iraq War before he was against it. When radio host Howard Stern asked him in September of 2002 whether he supported invading Iraq, he said, “Yeah, I guess so. You know, I wish it was, I wish the first time it was done correctly.” He also supported withdrawal from the country, telling CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in 2007, years before the Obama administration’s withdrawal in 2011, “You know how they get out? They get out … Declare victory and leave, because I’ll tell you, this country is just going to get further bogged down. They’re in a civil war over there, Wolf. There’s nothing that we’re going to be able to do with a civil war.”
By the way, don’t miss this interview at Foreign Policy by Aaron David Miller with Robert Malley, the president’s top Middle East policy official — “A Defense of Obama’s Middle East ‘Balancing Act.”
The Los Angeles Times also slammed Trump’s new policy proposals:
“In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test,” Trump said. “The time is overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today.” [...] And where the House Un-American Activities Committee delved into the alleged disloyalty of Americans during the Cold War, Trump would establish a Commission on Radical Islam that would “expose the networks in our society that support radicalization.” Trump said that “reformist voices in the Muslim community” would be invited to take part — an invitation unlikely to be accepted. [...]
Screening of potential immigrants and asylum-seekers for possible connections to terrorism is a matter of common sense as well as national security.
But ideological litmus tests for immigrants and a national commission to study “radical Islam” could be catastrophically counterproductive. Requiring assent to a checklist of values would punish thoughts rather than deeds and might encourage newcomers to dissemble about their beliefs. A commission designed to expose radicals could bring back the days of blacklists and guilt by association. These are frightening ideas. It’s no surprise that they have been proposed by Donald Trump.
Sopan Deb has a factcheck up at CBS News:
"My administration will speak out against the oppression of women, gays, and people of different beliefs," Trump said.
But Trump did not mention the treatment of gays in Russia, which in 2013, set off an international firestorm when it passed a law that fined the spreading of "nontraditional" sexual relationships among minors, widely perceived to be targeting gays. Instead, Trump once again went out of his way to call for closer ties with that country.
Here are more factchecks of the speech at the AP and POLITICO.
Dean Obeidallah at The Daily Beast makes an interesting point:
Donald Trump is on to something—he wants “extreme vetting” of immigrants to ensure that they agree with American values on issues like religious freedom, gender equality and gay rights. As Trump bluntly put it in his big foreign policy speech Monday, “Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country.”
But why focus on immigrants? Why not follow Trump’s mantra of “America First” and apply this test to American citizens? Yes, if you were born here, you had the luck of the draw. Which is a lucky thing for Trump, because if the test could be applied to natural-born citizens, the result would be that over half of the Republican Party—and most of Trump’s voters—would be banned from the United States.
On a final note, here’s a recap of Vice President Biden’s speech in Scranton:
Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. warned on Monday that Donald J. Trump, even as a candidate, had elevated the dangers confronting American allies and military personnel overseas.
Mr. Biden said that on a trip to Kosovo and Serbia this week, he would be compelled to “reassure” allies that the United States would honor its commitment to NATO, given Mr. Trump’s comments saying he would reassess the arrangement if elected. “Because they’re worried,” Mr. Biden said, in his first campaign appearance beside Hillary Clinton.
He added that if his son Beau, who died of brain cancer last year, were still serving in Iraq, he would advise him that the danger had increased “a couple clicks” because of Mr. Trump’s remarks, which have included the suggestion that President Obama was the “founder” of the Islamic State.
“This guy’s shame has no limits,” he said.
