Who Will Be the Next ‘America First’ President?

Guest Post by Pat Buchanan

Who Will Be the Next 'America First' President?

As domestic concerns are predominant — the COVID-19 pandemic, the invasion across our Southern border, soaring crime rates, race relations as raw as they have been in decades — it is time for U.S. statesman to look out for America and Americans first, and let the world look out for itself.

When President Joe Biden announced he would withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the 20th anniversary of 9/11, GOP hawks like Sens. Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham responded predictably.

“Grave mistake,” muttered McConnell.

“Insane,” said Graham, “dumber than dirt and… dangerous.”

Of more interest were the responses of conservative Republicans who commended the president. Among them were Sens. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley and ex-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a group that contains several potential candidates for the GOP nomination in 2024.

Donald Trump himself weighed in Sunday, saying Biden’s decision was “wonderful,” but Joe should have stuck to Trump’s May 1 deadline for withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Adding a veteran’s voice to the broad consensus was the American Legion which called for an end to America’s “forever war,” and repeal of congressional authorizations to fight this war.

While many older Republican leaders remain wedded to a Bush foreign policy, some of the prospective leaders of the party seem to be adopting their own versions of “America First.”

Opportunity may be at hand. The door may be open for a leader to articulate a new U.S. foreign policy vision, beginning with a review of our Cold War commitments that became irrelevant with the collapse of the Soviet Empire and breakup of the Soviet Union three decades ago.

Consider. NATO, which dates back to 1949, today contains 30 allied nations, while U.S. security treaties with South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand all date back to the 1950s.

How do all these war guarantees to other nations secure our vital interests, when our first vital interest is to stay out of any great war?

According to The New York Times, a 2020 survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found, “Republican voters preferred a more nationalist approach, valuing economic self-sufficiency, and taking a unilateral approach to diplomacy and global engagement.”

Almost half of Republicans surveyed agreed that the “United States is rich and powerful enough to go it alone, without getting involved in the problems of the world.”

A survey by pollster Tony Fabrizio found that “only 7 percent of Republicans prioritize national security and foreign policy issues.”

The opportunity is transparent.

As domestic concerns are predominant — the COVID-19 pandemic, the invasion across our Southern border, soaring crime rates, race relations as raw as they have been in decades — it is time for U.S. statesman to look out for America and Americans first, and let the world look out for itself.

Biden is a perfect foil — a trans-nationalist and globalist committed to the whole panoply of old security treaties and war guarantees that had existed for a generation even before he came to Washington 50 years ago.

The favorable reaction to his pullout from Afghanistan should have told Biden that. And it should tell Republicans that now may be the time to seize the moment.

Let Republicans openly reject the Biden administration’s unilateral commitments to fight China for tiny reefs claimed by the Philippines in the South China Sea and Japan in the East China Sea.

And, surely, it is time for that “agonizing reappraisal” of NATO promised by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles in the 1950s.

Why are we still committed, under NATO, to go to war with Russia on behalf of Germany, when the Germans, with their Nord Stream 2 pipeline, are doubling their dependency on Russia’s natural gas?

According to the Atlantic Council President Richard Haas, the U.S. should abandon its policy of “strategic ambiguity” as to what we would do if China attacks Taiwan — and make a commitment to defend Taiwan.

But why should the United States commit to a war with China for an island President Richard Nixon conceded in 1972 was part of China?

Among the reasons Trump won in 2016 is that he offered a foreign policy of easing tensions with Vladimir Putin’s Russia, getting us out of the endless wars of the Middle East, and making free-riding allies pay the cost of their own defense.

Yet, though, currently, we have commitments to fight for 29 NATO nations, there is a push on among our foreign policy elites to add new nations, such as Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Finland and Sweden.

But, again, why surrender our freedom to decide whether to fight?

As for South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, each could build a nuclear deterrent, as Israel, Pakistan and India have done. If a war were to be fought with China that could go nuclear, why would we want to be a mandatory participant?

Among the reasons the U.S. emerged victorious in the 20th century was that we stayed out of the two world wars longer than any of the other great powers.

“Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up,” wrote G. K. Chesterton. Sound advice. But some of these fences were built before most Americans were born, and the world has changed.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Click to visit the TBP Store for Great TBP Merchandise
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
8 Comments
Iska Waran
Iska Waran
April 20, 2021 3:32 pm

McConnell, Graham and Liz Cheney can stop worrying about the US leaving Afghanistan. We’re not leaving on 9/11/21. Trump scheduled our departure for May 1. Biden just moved that deadline back by four and a half months. And if Trump were still president he probably also would have delayed it again. He didn’t even have the balls to pardon Assange & Snowden, let us remember.

Crawfisher
Crawfisher
  Iska Waran
April 21, 2021 7:45 am

Don’t kid yourself, we ain’t leaving. The US has too much physical assets at major bases in Kandahar and Bagram. CIA private contractors will replace soldiers.

Ken31
Ken31
April 20, 2021 3:48 pm

I am not convinced there has been an “America First” President since Andrew Jackson.

olde reb
olde reb
April 20, 2021 5:38 pm

I believe too many congress critters have sold their soul (vote) to the military industrial complex. What state would risk a local military base closing by demanding closing down a foreign military base that drains US tax money to the foreign nation ??

falconflight
falconflight
April 20, 2021 5:53 pm

Ayatollah Kumonme?

KaD
KaD
April 20, 2021 8:15 pm

There will never be another ‘America First’ president unless the voting fraud gets fixed.

SGT SNUFFY
SGT SNUFFY
April 21, 2021 8:10 am

WELL FOR ONE THING POTUS TRUMP HAD ALREADY MADE A DEAL BETWEEN THE U.S., THE TALIBAN AND THE AFGHAN GOVERNMENT TO HAVE ALL OF OUR TROOPS OUT BY MAY FIRST. THAT WAS WORKED OUT BY EVERYONE INVOLVED OVER A PERIOD OF MONTHS. AND WHAT DID THE HARRIS/BIDEN REGIME DO ??? WHY PURPOSELY IGNORE RENIGGED ON THE DEAL AND SET THEIR OWN ONE SIDED DEAL. THE TALIBAN ARE PISSED OFF AND ARE PROBABLY GOING TO START HITTING OUR TROOPS LIKE THEY ARE BACK TO ATTACKING THE REGULAR AFGHAN FORCES. OF COURSE IT’S WHAT DEMOCRATS AND SELECT REPUBICS WANT. FOR US TO STAY ANOTHER 20 YEARS OR SO. I SAY LET THE CHICOMS HAVE AFGHANISTAN.

Zulu Foxtrot Golf
Zulu Foxtrot Golf
April 21, 2021 2:37 pm

They are all blood and guts. Their guts and our blood.