No. of Recommendations: 18
There was much more to it than that.
No doubt. But there was no "gunboat diplomacy." China didn't use force of arms to make Italy sign the MOU, and didn't respond with military force when they decided to leave.
You're making the same fatal mistake that all D.C. bureaucrats have been for a long time: That what we're doing was a path to success.
No, I'm not. I don't assume what we're doing was effective - I'm just pointing out that what Trump's proposing is worse.
China's been eating our lunch on the global stage because we do not, and have not, been prioritizing economic investment in foreign economies as part of our strategic and security plans....while China has. China recognizes that every mine they dig, every port they build, every piece of infrastructure they invest in out in Africa and South America and underdeveloped countries across the world gives them a geopolitical security benefit. Here in the U.S., isolationists have been teaching the American public that all of that stuff is just charity - we do it because we are bleeding hearts. When in fact the truth is that we do it (and used to do it more) because it was smart national security.
Which is the irony of this discussion. You recognize that when China sends all this money abroad to these developing countries across the world, that they're not doing it to be generous but are doing it to foster their own national interests and promote their power; but if the U.S. does the same thing, it's criticized as being for the benefit of those countries' populations and inconsistent with "America First."
