In fact, i usually really dislike his pieces, and find myself objecting to his arguments with my own prioritized list of things that matter to me, or which I think are true.
But this piece re-framed matters and made me pause...take a beat...and try on information in way VERY different than the way I have information organized in my mind right now.
RD starts off with a premise: Trump has "an incredible instinct for the weaknesses of enemies and rivals, a willingness to tear away what looks like strength to reveal the rot beneath, an eye for the main chance and an appetite for conquest."
Hmmm...yeah, that's true. Trump is the worst bully to ever disgrace the American stage. His savage burns have a fairly high hit rate. An abnormally large % land and do material damage to the target...Jeb!, little hands Marco, crooked Hillary, Sleepy Joe, etc.
The second premise follows from the first (which is, reminder, that Trump is really good at being a horrible bully): "But the second term has made it clear that the recurring Trumpian arguments for foreign policy restraint should be understood primarily as rhetorical bludgeons against his neoconservative and liberal opponents that, having served their purpose, *can be discarded when new opportunities appear*. Likewise his impulse for deal making should be understood as just one means of power projection, whose pleasures are milder than the thrill of seeing geopolitical rivals humiliated or captive or simply dead."
Trump is a horrible, violent person. He'd rather kill an adversary than accommodate them in any way.
We've see that within the United States: Renee Good? Alex Pretti? The targets of his bogus DOJ attacks? Off with their heads.
But he's also doing it on the global stage:
Syrian regime...decapitated
Venezuelan regime...decapitated
Iranian regime...decapitated
And what has been the blowback to America? (so far...lol)
I don't see much...help me out, here. I know America's reputation is in the shiitter. I know America has never been more hated. But is America going to be gang-attacked but the other nations of the world?
I harken back to Trump's "locker talk", as Melania called it, with one of the Bush boys: "when you're famous, they let you do it". They let you get away with it.
I'm not unhappy that the Iranian ayatollah is dead. From what I've read, he was a terrible person, maybe as terrible as Trump (though I doubt it). And maybe the next guy will be worse...I feel sorry for the Iranians. Maybe they'll do something, take some risks, make some sacrifices, so that they get leadership that treats the nation in the way it collectively wants to be treated. But I'm not holding my breath. It's very hard to overthrow incumbent power AND successfully govern the aftermath. The 1st part is hard enough. Pulling off the double is EXTREMELY improbable. I get why people blanch and stop short of taking the leap of faith required.
So it seems to me, looking at the evidence at hand, that America is a rogue nation, doing whatever it wants to whomever it wants and is at risk of little to no consequence. (Yeah, there's probably a dirty bomb or two in our future...did we think we were always going to dodge that bullet? Yeah, I might in my lifetime, but what about my progeny's?)
What if Trump trained his crosshairs on Pootie-Poot? He'd never get my vote, but, yeah, he'd get a golf clap from me.
Syria, Venezuela, Iran...who's next? What do the prediction markets say? (And don't say California.)