
Biden's Middle East trip: Following in Trump's footsteps
WATCH: Biden looks poised to betray his campaign promise to sideline Saudi Arabia. Does this really serve America's interests?

Responsible Statecraft
Responsible Statecraft is a publication of analysis, opinion, and news that seeks to promote a positive vision of U.S. foreign policy based on humility, diplomatic engagement, and military restraint. RS also critiques the ideas — and the ideologies and interests behind them — that have mired the United States in counterproductive and endless wars and made the world less secure.
Top image credit: Richard Peterson via shutterstock.com
The reality of Trump’s cartoonish $1.5 trillion DOD budget proposal
January 08, 2026
After promising on the campaign trail that he would drive the war profiteers out of Washington, and appointing Elon Musk to trim the size of government across the board, some will be surprised at President Trump’s social media post on Wednesday that the U.S. should raise the Pentagon budget to $1.5 trillion. That would mean an unprecedented increase in military spending, aside from the buildup for World War II.
The proposal is absurd on the face of it, and it’s extremely unlikely that it is the product of a careful assessment of U.S. defense needs going forward. The plan would also add $5.8 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Budget.
This would fly in the face of the purported savings of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). In fact, a $500 billion increase in Pentagon spending would be more than double all of the alleged budget cuts wrought by DOGE, even according to DOGE’s own exaggerated figures. The $500 billion increase in Pentagon spending would also be more than the entire military budget of any country in the world, and more than China, Russia, and Iran spend on their militaries combined.
And, the Pentagon budget is already enormous, at $1 trillion per year, with more than half of that going to Pentagon contractors, and untold more lost to waste, fraud, and abuse. Exactly how much of our tax dollars devoted to propping up the Pentagon are wasted is unclear, because the Pentagon has never passed an audit.
We do know that spending on dysfunctional, unnecessary or unworkable systems like the F-35, highly vulnerable $13 billion aircraft carriers, the impossible dream of a leak proof Golden Dome missile defense system, and an unnecessary across-the-board scheme to spend up to $2 trillion on new nuclear weapons over the next two decades will waste tens of billions of dollars every year for a long time to come.
Add to this the Pentagon’s moves to weaken its independent weapons testing office and reduce oversight of bloated weapons contractors, and we have a perfect recipe for increasing waste, fraud, and abuse on the part of the Pentagon and its contractors. And, as always, the bedrock of overspending on the Pentagon is America’s hyper-militarized, “cover the globe” military strategy, an approach that seeks to maintain the ability to intervene anywhere in the world on short notice.
The president also claimed that his $1.5 trillion Pentagon spending proposal, if implemented, will fund our “dream military.” More likely, it will initiate a period of blatant waste and underwrite misguided and dangerous military adventures like the occupation of Venezuela.
Even with a Congress that has been giving the Pentagon a blank check for years, the $1.5 trillion figure is unlikely to pass muster. If we want a safer nation, we should be going in the other direction, towards a lower Pentagon budget, driven by a more intelligent and restrained strategy, and a more rigorous approach to devising, developing, and producing weapons.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: President Donald Trump monitors U.S. military operations in Venezuela, from Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, on Saturday, January 3, 2026. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)
Trump's sphere of influence gambit is sloppy, self-sabotage
January 08, 2026
Spheres of influence stem from the very nature of states and international relations. States will always seek to secure their interests by exerting influence over their neighbors, and the more powerful the state, the greater the influence that it will seek.
That said, sphere of influence strategies vary greatly, on spectrums between relative moderation and excess, humanity and cruelty, discreet pressure and open intimidation, and intelligence and stupidity; and the present policies of the Trump administration in the Western Hemisphere show disturbing signs of inclining towards the latter.
The Monroe Doctrine too has varied greatly in the two centuries since it was first announced as core to U.S. foreign and security policy. Originally, it was no more than the stated determination to prevent Spain from re-establishing its imperial rule over its former colonies, or Britain and France taking them over.
During the Cold War, the previous determination to exclude foreign empires morphed into a determination to prevent states in the Western Hemisphere from joining hostile military and political alliances; or if Washington was forced to concede this (as in the case of Cuba), to cripple the states concerned through economic sanctions and subversion.
This longstanding U.S. strategy renders absurd the NATO and European line concerning Ukraine that “every country has the right to choose its international alliances,” and that no other country has a veto over this. And of course, this rule extends far beyond the U.S. and Latin America, or Russia and Ukraine. Whatever its legal or moral “right,” Vietnam would be very ill-advised to join a military alliance with the U.S. against China, as would Bangladesh if it joined a Chinese alliance against India. Or as one Kazakh official once told me when the U.S. was seeking a security relationship with his country, “Every sensible Kazakh has a map in his head; and what that map shows is that Russia is there, and China is there, and Kazakhstan is in the middle. And the U.S. is not on that map.”
The implacable U.S. goal of preventing a hostile military presence in the Americas has been pursued by both Republican and Democratic administrations; and though the result for populations in the region was often monstrous oppression and suffering, this strategy did succeed in excluding potential military adversaries from America’s neighborhood. No Latin American government today is dreaming of inviting the Chinese or Russians to establish bases on their territories. Nor would Beijing and Moscow accept such an invitation. For they all know very well how ferocious and overwhelming would be the U.S. response.
That has not prevented actors in the U.S. from repeatedly using an alleged Soviet/Russian/Chinese threat to argue U.S. policies that they have in fact sought for quite different reasons. The single most dreadful example of this was the role of the United Fruit Company and its allies in the Eisenhower administration in creating the 1954 coup in Guatemala in order to block a moderate land reform, leading to a civil war in which tens of thousands of indigenous Maya people were slaughtered by the U.S.-backed military regime in what would today undoubtedly be called a “genocide.” The parallel with Trump’s desire that U.S. corporations should develop Venezuela’s oil is all too obvious.
Today, a non-existent “alliance” between the Venezuelan regime and China is being used as an excuse for the overthrow of that regime; and the feral hostility of the Cuba emigre lobby and its representatives in the U.S. administration to the existing Cuban state has nothing to do with any real security threat from Cuba, and everything with their own inherited hatreds and ambitions.
How much further will the Trump administration go? The “Donroe Doctrine” explicitly returns to the “Roosevelt Corollary” of 1904 that expanded the Monroe Doctrine to assert the U.S. right to exercise “international police power” to intervene in the internal affairs of Latin American states if they show “chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society.”
So far however, while Trump has declared that the U.S. will “run Venezuela,” he has stopped short of previous U.S. administrations of the first half of the 20th century in that he has not sought to invade and occupy Venezuela. Instead, the kidnapping of President Maduro seems intended to frighten the existing Venezuelan regime into submitting to Trump’s will, especially when it comes to U.S. control of Venezuela’s oil; not just for profit, but for leverage against Russia and China. By cutting off much of Cuba’s oil imports, it might also enable the U.S. to starve Cuba into surrender, allowing Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s relatives to return “home” and regain the property that they lost in the Cuban Revolution.
The problem about trying to run client regimes in this way is: What do you do if they threaten to collapse? This is the dilemma that the U.S. faced in Vietnam, in Iran in 1979, and in Afghanistan by 2020, and the Soviet Union faced in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, and Russia faced in Ukraine in 2014. Double down or quit? That is to say, allow your clients to collapse, with the resulting damage to your interests and your “credibility,” or send in your own troops to try to ensure their survival?
In the great majority of cases where the U.S. has chosen the latter course, the results have been disastrous.
In one critical instance, the official statements of the Trump administration go much further than the Roosevelt Corollary, which begins with “It is not true that the United States feels any land hunger…as regards the other nations of the Western Hemisphere” (though this would have come as a surprise to the Spanish and Panamanians). Trump and senior Trump officials by contrast have repeatedly emphasised their desire to annex Greenland and (less seriously) Canada. And Canada and Denmark are neither enemies nor dysfunctional dictatorships, but successful democracies and the closest of U.S. allies.
Trump and his team should take note of the Danish prime minister’s warning that a seizure of Greenland would “end NATO.” They should also look at how the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 destroyed any chance of continued Russian influence over Ukraine; and how China’s demand for the whole of the South China Sea frightened all of its neighbors, including ones previously well-disposed towards China.
China drove its neighbors into Washington’s arms. Trump risks driving America’s neighbors into the arms of China. The Trump administration also needs to remember that U.S. economic influence in Latin America is vastly reduced. Throughout the 20th century, the U.S. was by far the greatest trading partner and investor in South America. Now it is China, which has also greatly increased its role in Central America. This gives countries significant opportunities to resist U.S. economic pressure; and if the U.S. tries to destroy their increasingly vital economic ties with China, it will create a backlash that will undermine or even destroy its sphere of influence.
Finally, there is an issue of diplomatic tone. It has often been said, and rightly, that Russia weakened its influence over its neighbors by the bullying tone in which its officials often stated Russian demands. Even Russian officials at their worst however would be hard put to match the coarse, smirking arrogance of Stephen Miller on the subject of the U.S. demand for Greenland. Miller clearly sees himself as an old-style imperialist. He should read a real old imperialist, Rudyard Kipling:
“If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe,
Such boastings as the Gentiles use,
Or lesser breeds without the Law—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!”
(Kipling, Recessional)
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: Newspaper coverage of the coup and deaths, later ruled assassination of Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu. (Los Angeles Times)
JFK oversaw Vietnam decapitation. He didn't live to witness the rest.
January 08, 2026
American presidents have never been shy about unseating foreign heads of state, by either overt or covert means. Since the late 19th century, our leaders have deposed, or tried to depose their counterparts in Iran, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, and elsewhere.
Our presidents indulge in regime change when they perceive foreign leaders as inimical to U.S. security or corporate interests. But such efforts can backfire. The 1961 attempt to topple Fidel Castro, organized under President Eisenhower and executed under President Kennedy, led to a slaughter of CIA-trained invasion forces at the Bay of Pigs and a triumph for Castro’s communist government. Despite being driven from power by President George W. Bush in retribution for the 9/11 attacks, the Taliban roared back in 2023, again making Afghanistan a haven for terrorist groups.
Now that President Trump has upended Nicolás Maduro, he faces the possibility that events may unfold in very unpredictable ways in Venezuela.
One of the least known but most consequential U.S.-backed coups occurred in 1963, when the Kennedy administration secretly encouraged South Vietnam’s generals to rise up against their authoritarian president, Ngo Dinh Diem. Diem was murdered during the revolt along with his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu, who ran the country’s counterinsurgency program against the communist Viet Cong. Their demise had far-reaching consequences that U.S. officials did not foresee.
Though a staunch U.S. ally, Diem had become a thorn in JFK’s side. In 1961, Kennedy launched a massive aid program, Operation Beef-Up, to help Diem fight the Viet Cong. American arms and combat advisers poured into South Vietnam, along with hundreds of millions of dollars in economic assistance. In exchange, Washington insisted that Diem reform his government – a demand the South Vietnamese leader resisted.
Diem’s recalcitrance made Kennedy a target for critics in Congress and the press. Why was the United States giving such generous help to someone who rebuffed its efforts to strengthen his government and ability to fight the communists?
The criticism grew louder after Diem’s soldiers massacred eight people outside a government radio station in Hue in May 1963. Most of the victims were Buddhists protesting the station’s refusal to air a commemoration of Buddha’s 2,507th birthday.
About 70 percent of South Vietnamese identified, at least nominally, as Buddhists. (Some 10-12 percent were Catholic, including Diem.) Diem’s refusal to punish those responsible for the killings and resolve other Buddhist grievances touched off nationwide demonstrations against him.
The breaking point came in August 1963, when Diem’s troops and police barged into pagodas in Saigon, Hue, and elsewhere, manhandling and arresting hundreds of Buddhist monks and nuns.
Outraged, Roger Hilsman, the assistant secretary of state for Far Eastern Affairs, drafted what became known as the “green light cable” to the U.S. ambassador to South Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge. Lodge was instructed to pressure Diem to get rid of Nhu, who Hilsman viewed as the architect of the pagoda raids. (Nhu denied this.) If Diem refused, Lodge was to surreptitiously contact his generals and promise them full U.S. military and economic support if they overthrew Diem.
Kennedy regarded the green light cable as a mistake, drafted and sent without sufficient high-level review, but never rescinded it.
When Kennedy later publicly criticized Diem, other State Department bureaucrats took action without his knowledge, quietly shutting off the U.S. aid pipeline to Diem’s government, army, and police.
Pro- and anti-Diem factions among JFK’s top advisers argued bitterly in meeting after meeting at the White House. At one point, Averell Harriman, the under secretary of state for political affairs, yelled “shut up!” at Frederick Nolting, Lodge’s predecessor as U.S. ambassador and a strong coup opponent.
The generals mistrusted the Americans and refused to provide details of their plans. They insisted on communicating exclusively through one of the few Americans they did trust, Lucien Conein, a swaggering, hard-drinking CIA agent in Saigon. Conein had been friends with South Vietnamese military men since his days as an anti-Japanese guerilla in Vietnam during World War II. But even Conein could find out little about the coup scheme, leading Secretary of State Dean Rusk to bemoan that the White House was “operating in a jungle.”
With no advance notice to the U.S. embassy, rebel troops swept into Saigon on November 1 and laid siege to Diem’s palace. Diem and Nhu surrendered the next morning, and were brutally bayoneted and shot to death inside a U.S.-supplied armored personnel carrier.

JFK recognized that the United States had a special obligation to post-coup South Vietnam and urged Lodge to do everything possible to help stand up a more effective government. But the patrician ambassador had little taste for nation building, and was distracted as supporters at home touted him as a 1964 Republican presidential candidate. Three weeks after Diem’s assassination, Kennedy lay dead in Dallas.
The generals had promised to turn power over to a civilian government but reneged, imposing a junta instead. As Washington had been warned, they proved incapable of running the government and, just three months after killing Diem, they were ousted by another general, Nguyen Khanh. Under Khanh, however, South Vietnam spiraled into political and religious chaos, with Buddhists and Catholics battling in the streets with knives, clubs, and grenades.
JFK was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson, who, as vice president, had visited South Vietnam in 1961 and recommended that U.S. combat forces not be committed there. But in Johnson’s first year as president, South Vietnam continued to unravel politically and militarily. Different governments rose and fell. The Viet Cong targeted Americans, both civilian and military, inflicting mounting casualties. And ominously, North Vietnamese army units appeared in South Vietnam for the first time.
Under unrelenting pressure from the Pentagon, LBJ initiated strategic bombing of North Vietnam in March 1965, the first step in what would become full-fledged Americanization of the war. That same month, he also deployed two Marine battalions to South Vietnam. By 1968, more than half a million U.S. troops were fighting there. In March 1968, Johnson announced he wouldn’t run for reelection, and would use his remaining months in office to end the war. He failed, and the last American forces weren’t withdrawn until 1973. By then, more than 58,000 U.S. personnel were dead, and another 306,000 wounded.
The Diem coup effectively decapitated the South Vietnamese government, unleashing a host of long-suppressed blocs – military, political, and religious – whose ensuing competition badly destabilized the country. President Trump has decapitated the Venezuelan regime, with consequences yet to be known.
While he has pledged to “run” Venezuela, we have few details of how he plans to do that. He says he is open to the introduction of U.S. troops. Before he takes such perilous action, he should carefully study the U.S. record on removing foreign leaders. Because, like JFK, he may soon find himself operating in a jungle.
keep readingShow less
Newsletter
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.














