Comics Creators

Will Trump mean less foreign wars for America?


This is a very interesting article in the New Yorker about James Mattis. The magazine is no fan of Trump, but even they concede that the massive aggression being built up by Hillary before the election and the Eastward-gaining EU was going to mean more foreign wars than we’re likely to see under Trump. He’s an isolationist, not a globalist, but the half of America who tend to go to war might like a little respite from three decades of seeing their friends and family out there endangering their lives for countries on the other side of the world. This is an interesting piece…


Mattis isn’t going to advocate for war. I think Trump will want to beef up the military but not use it as many ch as he chickenhawks want.
As I was telling Jim last night, I think the US military would be used much more under Hillary.


It’s my one faint hope. Trump himself isn’t really consistent on any message (no surprise there), he’s said the Iraq war was a mistake but also said he would bomb places into oblivion. However on his staff are libertarians that favour stepping back.

With these mixed messages we’ll have to see.

I agree with Will that Clinton is hawkish and would bomb a lot. Her husband did and she did.


Definitely. Hillary’s anti-Russian rhetoric before the election was very troubling. As was the anti-Russian sentiment of an aggressive and expanding EU in recent years. Thank God we now have a US President who’s completely under Russian control :slight_smile:

But seriously. I think on foreign policy things are going to be a lot easier on the armed forces. I suspect it’s going to be a lot like Mattis’ own ethos… where you do absolutely nothing unless the situation 100% demands it and then all Hell gets broken loose. But even then only in the most extreme circumstances and peaceful solutions generally sought.



I dunno. Trump is such a thin skinned man child he’d be on moderated posts if here were a member here. He’s the kind of guy that would bomb a country that looked at him the wrong way.

With that said, I think everyone around him knows this and will put a dummy in his mouth every time he gets mad. I don’t think he has any vision so he’s not going to world-build like Hillary was planning. And he’ll let Putin do what he wants which is the main source of conflict these days.

Ultimately it’ll be out of his control - these things happen due to outside actions and the US simply responds. I don’t think it’ll make much difference no matter who’s in charge. And the GOP do love to go to war. The Tea Party don’t, but I don’t know which is pulling the strings these days.


I’m looking forward to seeing what Mattis brings. Im hoping that if the operations tempo stays the same then there’s an increase in personnel and funding.


Who knows. At this point it’s a guessing game. And people hoping Trump won’t be so bad, but I am afraid he will be that bad.


Speaking of Mattis:


The irony. The chances of going to war have decreased, but the chances of Trump just dropping a nuke have climbed.


What he said.


To be fair, there are enough sane people in the chain of command to launch a nuke that Trump will never launch one.


What he said again.


I’d like to think Mattis can bring two aspects to the fore on a major foreign policy decision:

The wider picture: Is this particular option really needed? What is the end goal? How does it fit into existing strategy? He’ll know there has to be a large amount of politics around the public statements but I’d hope he brings his experience as a soldier to also bear in breaking down an airy-fairy statement like ‘create democracy in country X’ into the steps needed to actually do that realistically, going beyond the bit Trump and co would love - the go in and blow shit up aka Team America solution - to how to winning the peace after the war. In a nutshell you could say everything that Iraq wasn’t.

Of course, this would see him run into one almighty wall of cost - modern warfare ain’t cheap and the public, while they may back a war, won’t necessarily back the funding for it. Cue half-arsed and badly resourced operations, but maybe that’s not so true in the US, tends to be so here.


I remain in denial that all this is real.


The biggest issue is potential war with Iran.


According to Mattis, that depends mostly on Iran and not the US:


I’m pretty comfortable that even the GOP don’t have the appetite for war with Iran. There’d be universal public backlash.


Also, I can’t believe nobody has done this yet:


Does anyone know if when Mattis said ‘it’s fun to shoot some people’ he was referring to the less/fewer pedants?


If anything, Mattis is a real-life Stannis