Trump’s Threats: Greenland, Mexico, and Political Strategy

Here’s a breakdown of the main points from the provided text:

* Public Sensitivity to Casualties: The central argument is that the US public has a very low tolerance for American ⁢casualties in war, and this considerably constrains the actions of the president‍ (both Trump and‍ biden). ⁣This has been the primary limitation on American war-making since the Iraq invasion.
* Trump’s Actions Reflect This: Trump has avoided large-scale military operations that would likely result in meaningful American deaths. Examples cited include the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, bombing of Iranian nuclear sites, and the raid on Maduro‘s palace. He didn’t retaliate after Iran fired missiles at US bases because no Americans were killed.
* Venezuela Example: The US appears to have abandoned efforts to‍ displace maduro in Venezuela, likely because a prosperous displacement would require a sustained military occupation with the risk of American casualties.
* Limited Public Support Even Without Deaths: Even without American deaths, public support for interventions (like the one in Venezuela) is low. A poll showed only 33% approval for a strike in Venezuela. ⁣ The public⁣ doesn’t see a strong national⁤ interest in regime change there.
* Biden’s Experience: ⁣Biden’s approval ‍ratings plummeted after the chaotic and deadly withdrawal ⁢from Afghanistan, demonstrating the public’s ⁢strong reaction to American military deaths.
* Trump’s Awareness: Trump is ⁢aware of the political damage caused by casualties, as seen with Biden’s drop⁤ in approval after Afghanistan, ⁤and attended⁣ a memorial for the fallen service members.

In essence, the article argues that the fear of American casualties is a powerful political force ⁢shaping ⁣US foreign policy, possibly more so than strategic considerations or ideological goals.