Huh:
There's a facile contention that President Trump — hostile to free trade pacts and skeptical of grand military alliances — is an isolationist, an advocate of American retreat and retrenchment on the global stage. This is not quite true: As Cambridge historian Stephen Wertheim noted earlier this month, "Trump isn't an isolationist. He is a militarist, something far worse."
Funny, I thought the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans, and jihadis everywhere had already ushered in a new age of aggressive militarism.
So President Obama, who was the first president to be at war for his entire two terms wasn't a war president? Trump is new?
Actually, I agree that President Obama was not a "war" president. From the beginning, he never acted like he felt that he led us at war. Being at war implies trying to achieve a victory with armed forces using organized violence in pursuit of military objectives.
President Obama seemed like he thought the war was an unfortunate distraction from domestic policies.
President Obama may be more accurately called a "killing president"--just using military force to buy time while he tried to transform America until he left office to write his memoir.
Perhaps Trump will match Obama's record of America fighting our enemies. Our enemies are persistent, after all. War or peace isn't a choice up to us only.
It would be nice if we acted like we are in a war--hot or cold, or something in between--in response to our enemies' militarization of their policies in order to gain an American victory.
This is actually the second time I read something really stupid from that author. Good Lord.
