Trump against European Freeloaders

By now you know that The Atlantic published some dubiously sourced remarks attributed to President Trump. Apparently, Trump had spoken disrespectfully of the uniformed military.

Now, to be fair about this, Trump has spoken disrespectfully to certain military officers. In fact, he called a bunch of them dopes and babies. But, now, a little context, please.

Defense Secretary James Mattis-- a man who had been fired from his command by Barack Obama-- tried to mount a coup against President Trump. Colluding with Secretary of State Tillerson and Economic advisor Gary Cohn, the men convened a meeting in the bowels of the Pentagon on July 20, 2017, in order to stage an intervention.

They believed that Trump did not understand anything about foreign policy and that therefore they needed to take over. If it was not a silent coup, the term means nothing. Link here and here.

So, Trump called them dopes and babies and losers. He told them that they did not know how to win wars any more. Considering how many wars we have won recently, it is not entirely deranged.

Anyway, the assembled philosopher kings wanted to retain the Iran nuclear deal, to play nicey-nice with Europe, to keep the American Israeli consulate in Tel Aviv, to maintain the Paris Climate accord, and so on. Since Trump had campaigned on all three points, the three unwise men were obviously defying, not just the president, but the will of the American people. About that point the mainstream media no longer utters the least word.

Anyway, you understand that Trump recently brokered a peace deal between Serbia and Kosovo, something that had eluded past presidents. He had also persuade the nations to move their Israeli embassies to Jerusalem. 

Caroline Glick lavishes praise on Richard Grenell for the work he did:

The economic normalization deal that President Donald Trump reached September 4 with President Aleksandar Vucic of Serbia and Prime Minister Avdullah Hoti of Kosovo was a diplomatic masterstroke. As Ambassador Richard Grenell, special envoy for the Serbia-Kosovo dialogue, explained last week, the deal was born of Trump's recognition that the longstanding diplomatic approach to the decades-long conflict between the two former Yugoslav republics would never move them towards peaceful relations. A new approach was needed.

No one is reporting on the next point, the reaction of the European Union. You will be surprised to learn that the EU is opposing the deal. Glick explains:

Given the ingenuity of the deal, and the fact that it achieves multiple goals, one might have expected that U.S. allies who share the goal of peace in the Balkans and the Middle East would welcome the deal and do everything they can to help it succeed. The first party who ought to have congratulated the Serbs, Kosovars and the Americans is the EU, ostensibly a friend to all three.

But stunningly, EU leaders responded with furious threats that, if heeded, will scuttle all that has been accomplished. While Vucic and Hoti held another round of meetings with EU officials in Brussels Monday, EU Commission spokesman Peter Stano issued a clear threat against both nations.

"There is no EU member state with an embassy in Jerusalem," Stano said, adding ominously that "any diplomatic steps that could call into question the EU's common position on Jerusalem are a matter of serious concern and regret."

Both Serbia and Kosovo have been in membership talks with the EU since 2011. So far, the talks have led to a dozen unimplemented deals. They fizzled out altogether in 2018 and only restarted in the spring after the Trump administration ramped up its efforts to mediate the countries' long-running dispute.

No doubt rattled by the EU's open threat, the Serbs have begun backtracking on their commitment to move their embassy. If that happens, it is likely that much of the rest of the deal will also fall apart and Serbian-U.S. relations will deteriorate, as will Balkan stability.

As Glick points out the EU consistently acts as though it is an adversary, not an ally. It often refuses to follow America’s lead on foreign policy. Yet, the three unwise men, led by James Mattis, were surely severely torqued over the fact that President Trump was no longer going to bend over for Europe. Especially when the United States taxpayer is paying for Europe’s defense. 

Glick is certainly right to remark that if these countries want to be treated like allies, they should behave like allies. And they should also pay their share of NATO operating expenses.

Whether the issue is Balkan peace, the International Criminal Court, Iran's nuclear program, Russian gas deals or China's 5G network, the EU always adopts positions that reject American leadership. Whatever issue is on the table at any particular moment, if the U.S. has a strong interest in a certain outcome—even if Europe ostensibly shares the U.S.'s goal—the EU adopts a policy opposed to the U.S.

Part of this owes to a freeloader mentality. The EU trusts that the U.S. will achieve its goals and Europe will be the beneficiary of American victories. At the same time, by opposing the U.S., Europe will maintain its close ties with America's enemies at America's expense and to Europe's financial and diplomatic benefit.

The freeloader mentality. Trump wants to end it. The unwise men want to continue it. Is this a reason to overthrow the president, to conspire to prevent him from conducting foreign policy according to the positions he took during his campaign?