Delivered in (mostly) complete sentences, but still the same old Squirrel-Hair

Noah Rothman at Commentary invites us to look at the inconsistency with which Trump's foreign-policy address is riddled:

There were a number of references to the old pre-World War II Isolationist movement slogan “America First,” denunciations of the “false song of globalism,” whatever that means, and the assertion that Americans “feel they come second to the citizens of a foreign country.” This brand of paranoid nationalism was intermingled with pledges to transform the world’s only superpower and the world’s preeminent defender of democracy into history’s most powerful protection racket. But what was most striking, and also revealing about why this campaign cannot ever be retooled into something broadly palatable to traditional Republican policy experts, is how replete the speech was with contradictions. Trump has made such a hash of his worldview that there will never be any way to reconcile some of his most cherished policy preferences with others.

Trump began this foray into fatuousness with a nod to the “greatest generation” that “beat back the Nazis and Japanese imperialists” and “saved the world.” But within a handful of sentences, he repudiated their greatest work: the creation of what we refer to today as the Western world. He engaged in this ill-advised bloviating amid an attempt to attack America’s approach to post-September 11 counter-terrorism efforts. “It all began with a dangerous idea that we could make western democracies out of countries that had no experience or interests in becoming a western democracy,” he noted. These same tired and debunked ideas were said to apply to the alien Japanese pre-War culture and a Germany that had only ever known Prussian militarism. These were not democracies; how could we be so prideful as to think we could remake them in our own image? And yet, after much sacrifice and decades of commitment, that was what was done.

“Our allies are not paying their fair share,” Trump threateningly implied, “and I’ve been talking about this recently a lot. Our allies must contribute toward their financial, political, and human costs, have to do it, of our tremendous security burden.” He added that the United States “must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves.”

Trump noted that only four of America’s NATO allies meet the requisite goal of spending the equivalent of 2 percent of GDP on defense – as of 2015, the number was actually five: the United States, the United Kingdom, Greece, Poland, and Estonia. Trump doesn’t seem to have given much thought to the fact that those are nations most threatened in their neighborhoods – Greece by neighboring Turkey, Poland and Estonia by Russia, and Britain and the United States by their commitments to security and peace around the world. Nor has he given much thought to the benefits and dividends associated with peace, including the unimpeded global commerce that makes consumer goods cheap and increases living standards – phenomena he seems to see as threats to rather than facets of American prosperity. Perhaps this inconsistency is because Trump doesn’t see threats to American security outside of the Muslim world. On Russia, in particular, the celebrity candidate has insisted that the world has nothing to fear.

“I believe an easing of tensions, and improved relations with Russia from a position of strength only is possible, absolutely possible,” Trump contended. “Common sense says this cycle, this horrible cycle of hostility must end and ideally will end soon.” To create a moral equivalence between the West and Vladimir Putin’s Moscow is grotesque and ignorant. There is no comparison between the Western world and its support for allies who merely aspire to ascend to membership in the Atlantic Alliance and a country that invades and illegally annexes sovereign territory. The notion that Russia is an ally in the war on radical Islamic terrorism is often betrayed, primarily by its support for the Assad regime that has facilitated the growth of ISIS. Trump’s vision of strength in regard to Moscow is a declaration of unilateral surrender in the face of competition and hostility.

“They look at the United States as weak and forgiving and feel no obligation to honor their agreements with us,” Trump said of America’s allies. But while he contends that the U.S. must exact concessions from its allies while making concessions to its adversaries, he also insists that the Obama administration must be rejected for doing precisely the same thing. “We pick fights with our oldest friends, and now they’re starting to look elsewhere for help,” Trump lamented. “Not good.” So, which is it?

Often, Trump criticized the Obama administration for simultaneously being too muscular in relation to the use of force as a diplomatic tool while also being too soft. The celebrity candidate promised to be different, but while also being similar. After again demonstrating that he doesn’t know what a trade deficit is by contending that it should be balanced “quickly,” he asserted that the world should “look at what China is doing in the South China Sea.” Without defining what that is, he noted: “they’re not supposed to be doing it.” You’ve heard the same turn of phrase from Secretary of State John Kerry when he’s utterly flummoxed by the actions of American adversaries and has no way to counter them.

Leaders of other nations, be they allies, adversaries or enemies, will be hard-pressed to discern a pattern here from which they can formulate policy toward post-America. This speech looks like a formula for continuing the sidelining of post-America that has begun under the Most Equal Comrade's rule.

UPDATE: Heather Wilhelm at RCP offers the pathetic, predictable responses of some leading lights of Trump-bottery:

Sen. Jeff Sessions found the speech “electrifying.” Newt Gingrich called it “a serious foreign policy speech” “worth reading and thinking about.” Radio host Laura Ingraham labeled it “one of the most consequential foreign policy speeches since 1981.” Media gadfly Ann Coulter, not to be outdone, called it the “GREATEST FOREIGN POLICY SPEECH SINCE WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL ADDRESS,” because she’s not crazy at all.

Dog vomit where their souls should be.