Where does Trump's military adventurism stop? What are the consequences of that to the US?

I think you’ve had the best, most likely accurate post here so far.

Right. If this were any other president, it would not be seen as that big a deal. But because it’s this demented, dying old mutherfucker, people are going to be worried.

The taking of Maduro does not upset me personally, and it likely is not illegal per past precedents. The whole only Congress can declare war but the president is commander in chief thing is, like the Second Amendment, a messy and poorly thought out element of the Constitution. Since the end of WWII, the issue has never really been settled. Here is a fairly rigorous article about it:

That said, because this is Trump, we don’t know what’s going to happen. Not just because Trump is unpredictable but also because the man is dying before our eyes. Did you see his speech (if it can be called that) after the attack? If ever there was a time when Trump should have been hopped up on whatever he takes and ready to promote his “success,” this was it. But he was barely coherent–barely awake!

So, really, my guess is that this isn’t the start of vast conquests, etc., though he may do something else small (relatively speaking) of a similar nature.

I would like to counter a couple of points I see in this thread.

The damage Trump is doing is permanent. We can never recover, etc. etc. I think the trust that Trump has done to the credibility of the GOP and any future presidents that come from it (may there be none) is extreme, but foreign leaders will understand that a Democratic government is not the same thing. Europe has its own issues with RWNJs these days.

Trump’s move will create new alliances. Europe will move toward China. Incorrect. Trump is temporary madness. China is a permanently bad, untrustworthy, and incompetent actor on the global stage, albeit not outright evil and crazy like Russia. The CCP is selfish and dedicated to preserving its own power over the long term. Europe is weak and knows that continuing to hitch itself to the back of the American Ford F-150 is its best bet.

The US is in decline. Sure, but every country in the world is facing the same problems right now as growth sputters, making capitalism (including China’s state capitalism), which requires a high rate of growth in order to balance its books, move from “late stage” to “terminal.”

In Trump’s incoherent speech, he openly said that the oil companies were going to run Venezuela and rebuild the infrastructure to get the oil flowing again. Such a move is gauchely imperialistic, but it’s not crazy (though Trump himself is crazy). It can even be seen as an organic move (mediated by Trump) on the part of the capitalistic economy and political structure of the US: i.e., plucking the last fruit on the tree, low-hanging or not, since growth opportunities have stalled. The desire to extract resources in Greenland is similar. If there are other moves to be made, they will probably proceed in this direction, though most likely mitigated by the saner (not saying much!) minds around Trump that can perform a cost-benefit analysis. Thus, I don’t think an invasion of Greenland is likely, but an incursion into Cartel Land in Mexico seems possible.

I would push back on this. I think the constitutional war powers are very clear and uncomplicated. Congress declares, President fights. Quaint actually. Modern politicians prefer/survive better with plausible deniability and messiness and non-war wars, so they have chosen a different route that provides them that cover.

Do you have a gift link to the article? I’d like to read it. I did notice it was written by John Yoo who I can guess is always going to give a very pro-Presidential slant to the constitutional analysis.

Re link, no gift link, but here is your new best online buddy:

The article describes how it might be less clear than you think, although I think it should be clear, and it was treated as clear (to my admittedly limited knowledge) until after WWII.

True, but air strikes and the opportunity/need to act quickly have also made it harder to draw a firm line.

Probably. Again, the article is rigorous (to my eye), but that doesn’t mean I agree with everything it says or am competent to critique the details. What I do think is clearly necessary is an update to the Constitution re war powers (among many, many other updates), but of course that isn’t going to happen.

Thanks! Can’t believe I didn’t know about that website.

Good read, nothing controversial for him. Not sure what he’s responding to, but it feels like someone said “Presidents can’t go to war without a congressional declaration” and he’s saying (constitutionally) Yes they can. He doesn’t address it, never does, but the war powers resolution (statute) covers any gaps in that argument. I’d guess, he doesn’t believe the wpr resolution is binding on the President and has written extensively that it does not. That’s his pro-constitutional (statutes don’t apply) to Presidents belief.

Anyways, I don’t think the author is saying anything needs to change. In fact, he says re Venezuela, “If Congress believes a president has acted illegally, it has plenty of tools at hand, including the power of the purse and, ultimately, impeachment”. I think the WPR obviously also applies as a violation/reason to use those tools Congress already has.

Late: I don’t mean to suggest Presidents cannot fight without a declaration. It kind of seems like I do, though. Here, I’d say it could have been prevented, and can still be limited.

Yep. I had been using another website that mostly worked, but when it went down my friend showed me this one, and I had a forehead-slapping moment like yours just now. It’s truly a paywall obliterator!

I’m with you on your take on the article, insofar as I understand these issues in the first place.

I’m less interested in the legality of what Trump does these days than the effects thereof. If Trump has taught us anything, it’s that a president of corrupt and malevolent purpose can use legal, maybe legal, and illegal maneuvers to do a whole lot of damage, especially since, as he has also shown us, the courts are too slow to catch up. W taught us the same thing, albeit in a more focused manner (the Iraq War was “legal,” and IMO did a lot more damage than everything Trump has done in both terms aside from eroding the norms themselves, which ultimately may have a worse result for the polity).

I don’'t think so. China is amoral and selfish, but America is irrational, malignant and utterly untrustworthy. So is Russia, but it’s far weaker. Europe staying linked to the US is suicidal; we’ll just drag them down with us, stabbing them in the back all the way. Making deals with someone who won’t keep them is pointless; hopefully Europe will recall from history how useless deals and alliances with fascists are.

China isn’t nice, but the US is a threat to human civilization.

I don’t really disagree with your post–if we grant that Trump or one of his successors will continue the same program. Trump is not long for the world, and I am not sure if his immediate successor (almost certainly Vance) will want to continue in his footsteps, and I am even less sure that he will succeed if he makes the attempt. In short, Europe is waiting for normalcy or something close to it to return, and that is the best strategic play for the continent for now.

Also, have you studied the Middle Kingdom? China has tended to be a monolith unto its own and a poor builder of alliances throughout its 3,000±year political history. Sure it’s got the Belt and Road Initiative - Wikipedia, and it’s tended to be a savvy guardian of its own interests, but it’s not the kind of empire that’s going to forge something new and amazing (and effective) with Europe. It doesn’t even have many vassal states like North Korea, while its neighbors have tended to be the vassal states of other countries (Vietnam and Mongolia to the USSR, Japan and Taiwan to the US, etc.).

China should be doing better. It has superpower potential but not the superpower mindset. Belts and roads is the kind of thing that could work in its favor, but it is pretty minor in the scheme of things.

The above all IMHO, of course.

In his mind Trump has achieved total victory. He has provided MAGAS with war theater and massive explosions. Maduro has been cleanly removed. Corporations have access to the oil. The political and commercial infrastructure is intact.

Trump has done the hard work, Rubio and Hegseth can run Venezuela. Trump needs to move on to get out from under residual obligations.

Annexing Greenland would make the US the largest country in the world. A major bragging point. For Trump there are no legal barriers to annexation. He will just do it.

Why is the EU not aggressively pushing back on this?

Fascism is the new normal in the US, and that means military expansionism. We’ll keep grabbing land until somebody stops us.

Give them time to wean themselves off of American support. They really don’t need to ally with China once Germany takes up the slack in military production. The EU has nuclear weapons and can easily hold there own agaisnt a conventional Russia attack now.

It will be ironic to see Germany leading the fight agaisnt American facistism and Russian agression.

I agree with you up to this point:

That’s attacking a NATO country, and there is no going back from that. The international and internal ramifications are very big and very complex. Even a moron like Hegseth and a stooge like Rubio understand this. I don’t think it’s “just do it” territory. If they do do it, the USA as we knew it (in its post-9/11 degraded but not obliterated state) ends, and all hell breaks loose. Since Trump is reckless but also a coward, I am inclined to think that this will not happen.

Eh. I don’t think anything is “normal” in America any more (and pretty much the world, for that matter). Trump’s fascism is inchoate and lacking in confidence. It will die with him, and he’s dying soon.

He’s also stupid, ignorant, narcissistic and senile. It’s both likely he won’t realize about the international repercussions, and that he won’t care. Realistically short of a nuclear war he’s in no personal danger, and even then he wouldn’t care as long as none of the bombs hit him, personally. If a hundred million Americans die, well none of them are Trump therefore none of them have any value whatsoever.

Don’t presume that a senile narcissist is going to judge consequences like we would, or do so well at all.

True and Trumps’ infantile attitude toward NATO is not reassuring.

Can you point out where he actually cares about this?

Basically agree, but…

He cares about what happens to his kids, since narcissists project themselves onto their children. He also cares about his “legacy”; that’s why he wants everything named after him and covets the Nobel Peace Prize (lol).

Agreed. It really comes down to pushback from those around him and what motivates him as a narcissist who wants to do everything his own way while at the same time valuing the opinions of others in an outsize manner.

It’s more about those around him. Also, I think it’s less about what Trump cares about and more about what he understands. Which is virtually nothing, of course. That’s the real danger. But those around him at least do understand these things (even if they don’t care in the way that we do).

What aggressive pushbacks are you thinking of?

But almost no matter what they are, here the problem: They already have one superpower enemy, Russia, and cannot afford another.

If Putin’s successor is pro-Western, and the U.S. continues in a Trumpy vein, you might see a realignment where there is aggressive push back against the U.S. Not now.