I think that Trump thinks in terms of vassal states like AC, except in this case Venezuela is a vassal state.

Trump is far from stupid as he realises how little assistance Russia can offer, especially with the naval blockade. The occupation is limited to the oil producing area, and the US will be in almost complete control over what goes in and out of the country. Trump isn't dealing with psychotic fanatics controlling a brainwashed population, rather a gangster elite with a large excluded population that would be glad to see the back of them, much as you find in any socialist nation.

Seeing the revolting commies kicked out of central America would be prelude to increased stability and economic advance in the region, and a great achievement for Trump.

Such a contrast from the divisive cult leader Albo making a hash of the economy here with his team of ageing political activists.

Hopefully the Iranians can overthrow their theocratic oppressors.

Johnny CB.

#…Trump has no idea what he's doing, and is likely just stuck at a pre-reflective moral stage where power feels self-justifying and restraint feels arbitrary - a stage most of us had progressed passed by the time we were adult
I now call it "the 4D-Chess myth…#

Well, really.
"Society has a right to insure its own survival” . Stage five (a more accurate assessment I would judge), of the six stages of moral development in Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development, which you seem to be alluding to as your guide to pillory Trump.

Anybody that cannot observe a definite planned direction to which Trump moves the two dimensional chess pieces, across a three dimensional world chess board, is ideologically blind and probably very stupid.

That’s enough for the moment, except to offer Daffy Ducks phone number if I had it; you pair would have a lovely night together on the porch under the glow of the red dragon.

Thanks, Muff Diver Dan.

You just handed me a gift with that last response of yours. You see, invoking Kohlberg doesn’t rescue your point, it undermines it.

Stage 5 reasoning is explicitly about social contracts, procedural legitimacy, and constraints on authority. Power is justified because it is constrained, accountable, and rule-bound.

What you’re describing instead is power asserting its own necessity. That mode of justification appears at multiple stages, including much earlier ones. Quoting “society has a right to ensure its survival” doesn’t locate the reasoning at Stage 5; it just supplies a slogan.

More importantly, none of this addresses my actual claim. I’m not arguing Trump lacks motives or reasons. I’m arguing that Graham’s article retrofits coherence by treating rhetoric as doctrine and improvisation as design.

If this is “strategy,” point to the constraints, sequencing, and trade-offs identified before the action. Strategy without constraints isn’t strategy; it’s narrative pattern-matching.

As for the insults, they don’t strengthen your case. They just signal how uncomfortable you are with the argument.

Johnny CB.

What stands out in your original post, is not an objection to the obvious meanings behind the article, but your Trump bitch-out, assembled with fake intelligence, and plied as fact but implicitly wrong, with its only achievement a demonstration of ideological bias, which frankly is childish, unoriginal and boring: I’ve pulled it apart at the first paragraph, and laid it bare for what it is …crap.

You can argue till the cows come home, but tell it to Daffy Duck, he’ll likely believe you, whereas…

Muff Diver,

I'm quite happy to defend what I said about Trump. I see nothing to suggest that Trump has any concept of what he is doing. Nor do I see anything to suggest that he has the ability to engage in any form of long-term planning.

Trump's actions have been a series of uncoordinated impulses driven primarily by emotion and dangerously disorganised thinking. And again, his mode of justification treats power as self-validating and restraint as optional.

These aren't insults, they're observable patterns (or the lack thereof).

If you think I'm wrong, point to a case where Trump accepted binding constraints, respected process over outcome, or refrained from action because legitimacy mattered. Not rhetoric after the fact - actual restraint before action.

Simply asserting "society has a right to ensure its survival" doesn't locate Trump at a higher moral stage. That slogan can justify anything, at any stage, including very early ones.

Until you can show reflective constraint rather than post-hoc narrative, calling this "strategy" is just retrofitting intention onto power.

Thanks for the article GY.