How to interpret the #NationalSecurityStrategy?
On one hand, it’s a coherent, assertive strategy affirming that praise for McMaster and the natsec team is warranted, especially now without influence from Bannon, Gorka, McFarland, and Flynn...
-
Show this thread
-
On the other hand, it’s a reminder of the disconnect between the natsec professionals and the president. For example, the NSS calls for bolstering ties with democratic allies, while Trump recently insisted (again) that NATO countries owe the US back payments.
2 replies 6 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
The
#NationalSecurityStrategy calls for more military spending, including on traditional systems, which is in line with the president. But it also says diplomacy is “indispensable” and calls for more capacity, while Trump (and Tillerson) try to cut State’s budget and personnel.1 reply 2 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
There’s also something in the NSS about bilateral trade deals. But countries keep rebuffing Trump—for example on his recent trip to Asia—because his word means little and they think he’s trying to screw them over, not reach a mutually beneficial arrangement.
2 replies 1 retweet 1 likeShow this thread
So what’s the value of a #NationalSecurityStrategy that partially contradicts the person executing it?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(END)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.