So just supposing . . .

[wingco]

. . . Biden were to win. Possibly the only redeeming feature of Trump's Presidency, albeit a negative, is that his isolationism has made him the least bellicose US President since the late 70s. A lot less killing has happened overseas on his watch, I'm guessing and there have certainly been no new wars, despite fears he might have decided to wage one against Iran. For whatever reason, his contempt for the military, the "America first" mantra, or his lack of stomach for international interventions, there hasn't been much action of that kind.

Does that change if Biden is elected? Is it a restoration of business as usual for the old military industrial complex? Or is America generally done with "spreading democracy", exhausted by the prospect? What might the geopolitical future hold?

[Diable Rouge]

With the exception of Rojava, it would seem that Assad is slowly grinding Syria into submission, and the Arab world appear to have abandoned the Palestinians, with many countries recognising Israel in recent months, so the Middle East will be less of an issue in recent years. The major geopolitical concern will be China's "Belt and Road" policy, having already made inroads into the EU, through Italy, Portugal and Greece, and particularly pronounced in Africa and Asia.

[EIM]

It seems like a lot of world leaders are too busy killing their own citizens to worry about those in another country.

[San Bernardhinault]

My guess is that Biden won't really have much to do with it - as with most things, I think he will mostly delegate. It will largely depends on who the Secretary of State is.

I'm pretty sure he'll work on "normalising" everything, so all the usual diplomatic stuff will resume, along with all the usual low-level spying and interfering. I'd be amazed if there was any reduction in the number of drone strikes. But I don't think there's any appetite for full blown foreign wars, rather than the proxy stuff. There'll just be the conventional continual unpleasantness.

A full on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Balkans, Somalia, Haiti, Grenada, Vietnam, Panama thing could well happen - my guess is that it wouldn't take a whole lot of provocation to get an establishment democratic administration to react. But it would require at least some provocation - there won't be the enthusiasm there was from the Rumsfelds and Cheneys.

[Amor de Cosmos]

The IHME modeling team is forecasting half a million US deaths from Covid-19 by the end of February. Biden will have plenty to keep him busy without starting foreign wars.

[Nefertiti2]

My guess is that Biden won't really have much to do with it - as with most things, I think he will mostly delegate. It will largely depends on who the Secretary of State is.

I'm pretty sure he'll work on "normalising" everything, so all the usual diplomatic stuff will resume, along with all the usual low-level spying and interfering. I'd be amazed if there was any reduction in the number of drone strikes. But I don't think there's any appetite for full blown foreign wars, rather than the proxy stuff. There'll just be the conventional continual unpleasantness.

A full on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Balkans, Somalia, Haiti, Grenada, Vietnam, Panama thing could well happen - my guess is that it wouldn't take a whole lot of provocation to get an establishment democratic administration to react. But it would require at least some provocation - there won't be the enthusiasm there was from the Rumsfelds and Cheneys.

hmmm- there's a hearty endorsement

So who is going to be Secretary of State. H Clinton again?

[Nefertiti2]

The IHME modeling team is forecasting half a million US deaths from Covid-19 by the end of February. Biden will have plenty to keep him busy without starting foreign wars.

American presidents, of course, have never started foreign wars to distract from problems at home

[Diable Rouge]

Kerry would be another contender.

[Amor de Cosmos]

American presidents, of course, have never started foreign wars to distract from problems at home

Of course they have, but there's never been a domestic crisis as ferocious and nationally encompassing before. Troops dying overseas won't cancel out civilians dying in greater numbers at home, quite the opposite

[Patrick Thistle]

Without Coronavirus we would likely have had a war with Iran, wouldn't we? He smooshed that top general to provoke something and appear strong and manly to his base. It would have escalated through the summer.

[San Bernardhinault]

hmmm- there's a hearty endorsement

So who is going to be Secretary of State. H Clinton again?

Well, given that Biden was never my first, second, or third, or fourth, or fifth choice in the primaries, I don't know why you assume that I expect his policies to be anything other than prosaic and traditional for a Democrat.

As for who S-of-S will be, I have no idea. I wouldn't be surprised if it was Susan Rice. The list of people I hope it won't be include Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders who shouldn't be given any jobs in the administration as they come from states with Republican governors who would appoint Republican replacements.

[Satchmo Distel]

I would guess that under a Democrat you're more likely to get a "humanitarian" intervention like Clinton 1999 v Serbia or Obama in Libya. I don't think you'd get Iraq 2003 or a war v Iran unless the Iranians start slaughtering their internal enemies in large(r) numbers.

There's a risk that continual drone strikes will eventually provoke another "terror" attack on American soil or against US civilians abroad, which in turn would create pressure for further escalation of the "war on terror." I also suspect that Biden will find a pretext to continue the travel ban on various predominantly Muslim countries, supported by the Supreme Court.

Israel won't be happy to see Trump go but I doubt that Biden would frustrate their wishes. It's not as though the Dems are going to start voting against Israel in the UN, or cut funding. At worst Biden might make slightly disapproving noises if Israel escalates its killing even further.

[caja-dglh]

. . . Biden were to win.

Hang on - you choose to bring *this* over, rather than the whole Emily in Paris car-wreck?

[Jimski]

Or is America generally done with "spreading democracy"

Could do with a bit of democracy spreading in the US itself, given recent history of gerrymandering and disenfranchisement.

[Nefertiti2]

Could do with a bit of democracy spreading in the US itself, given recent history of gerrymandering and disenfranchisement.

it's not really a recent history. Was there a period from say 1972 to 2000 when American elections were "fair".?

[DCI Harry Batt]

Assad "winning" the war he started isn't a great hope for stability or owt.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

it's not really a recent history. Was there a period from say 1972 to 2000 when American elections were "fair".?

Why only go back to 1972? It's widely conceded that Kennedy's election in 1960 was not all above board, especially in Illinois.

[San Bernardhinault]

And obviously every election pre VRA wasn’t fair.

[ad hoc]

With the exception of Rojava, it would seem that Assad is slowly grinding Syria into submission, and the Arab world appear to have abandoned the Palestinians, with many countries recognising Israel in recent months, so the Middle East will be less of an issue in recent years. The major geopolitical concern will be China's "Belt and Road" policy, having already made inroads into the EU, through Italy, Portugal and Greece, and particularly pronounced in Africa and Asia.

The Arab world hasn't abandoned the Palestinians. The governments of the UAE and Bahrain have but not the citizens of those countries (nor of Saudi Arabia which is presumably next). (likewise 2 is not "many")

[Jimski]

it's not really a recent history. Was there a period from say 1972 to 2000 when American elections were "fair".?

Fair point! The history of the US - built on violence and denying people the vote.

[Satchmo Distel]

There has certainly never been a fair election in Florida because of, for example, felon disfranchisement.

[Nefertiti2]

Why only go back to 1972? It's widely conceded that Kennedy's election in 1960 was not all above board, especially in Illinois.

I was suggesting that after the Civil Rights Act and the ban on tests to vote in 1970 someone might claim elections were fair. Beforehand they clearly weren.t

[ursus arctos]

One could say that they were fairer from 72 to the early 90s (when the GOP gerrymandering and voter suppression machine really geared up following the 1990 census), but certainly not fair.

As Satchmo notes, lifetime felon disenfranchisement was just one of the provisions that survived under the Voting Rights Act before the Roberts Court gutted Section 5

Also worth remembering that Mr. Gerry himself first joined the Massachusetts legislature in 1789

[Nocturnal Submission]

Also worth remembering that Mr. Gerry himself first joined the Massachusetts legislature in 1789

Looks like most of us have been mispronouncing it.

[ursus arctos]

The original pronunciation seems to have died out in the 19th century