welp. that should be just about it, for now

Being Time magazine's "man of the year"......FAILED.
I thought George W lost the popular vote; or was that only once?

Just the first time.

First President in decades not to involve us in any new protracted foreign conflicts.

Credit where credit is due.

First President to outright ditch our allies and leave them to fend for themselves.

Credit where credit is due.

Given every NATO member agreed to pay a certain percentage of their GDP in defense spending, yet most of them failed to do so, I hardly see why we should let them get away with breaking their word. Especially countries like Germany, which is an industrial powerhouse and has plenty of cash, yet probably couldn't hold a candle to France or England militarily.

I don't think the Kurds were part of NATO

Well you didn't specify them and I saw no need to write an essay on U.S foreign policy in its entirety over the course of four years, so I defaulted to the of-cited, "lEaViNg nAtO" silliness that's thrown around commonly when Trump's foreign policy comes up, at least as it relates to allies.

Abandoning the Kurds outright was a pretty big deal in 2019. Like, probably the highlight of failed foreign policy. That said: First President to outright ditch our allies and leave them to fend for themselves.

Credit where credit is due.

I'd entirely forgotten about that incident, to be honest, but remember not being happy about it. I made a meme about it, in fact, which you could probably find by scrolling to the first few images ever made on my profile.

That said, if you want to focus on the Kurds then have at it. I myself came here to point out a notable Trump success, not listen to people whining about his failures (legit or perceived) for the umpteenth time.

Right, I was saying that while yes, we weren't involved in any "protracted foreign conflicts" that came at a price.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Supporting the Kurds as we were wasn't a high-intensity conflict and was already an operation underway. You may have missed my point, which was that we weren't involved in any NEW sustained conflicts for the first time in decades. That's the victory.

Fair enough. Your point was that we weren't involved in any *new* protracted conflicts. Which, is an unfair assessment as he only had a 4-year term. There's no telling what could have happened in a second term. That said, he did ditch people who we were allied to, and that was a detriment to our reputation as a reliable military neighbor/power/ally. When we damage our rep like that, we damage the likelihood people would come to our aid, if called for.

That said, I am aware of the original claim that gathered attention and momentum: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/01/fact-check-trump-not-first-president-since-eisenhower-without-new-war/6086636002/

He is also the first president to completely ignore a report suggesting the idea that Russia could be placing bounties on our soldiers. Not only did he simply not investigate it, he dismissed it entirely.

So, while yes, it's true what you say. This minor "accomplishment" is overshadowed by many of his other practices in foreign policy, and cowboy diplomacy that only damaged our reputation amongst our allies. It's kinda like saying "I have had a migraine for a couple days." Then, you smash my toe and for a time, I forget about the migraine, even though it still exists. You then say "Well, you didn't have a migraine for a couple days did ya?"

I am sure, under the same rubrik of measurement of simply acknowledging facts that you're using, Biden is the first president to unreservedly act to completely withdraw out of the middle east in over twenty years, right?

No, dude, it's not an unfair assessment. Presidents aren't entitled to two terms. Trump had one, so his entire Presidency will be judged within that window unless he pulls a Grover Cleveland and somehow gets elected again in the future.

That determined, Trump holds the distinction of being the first President in a LONG time to not involve us in any serious foreign conflicts. This is not related to his actions regarding current alliances, or anything involving relations with Russia. I never once said any of these achievements (or lack thereof) somehow compare with one another on a grand scale of goodness. You're seriously making a mountain out of a molehill...

If Biden is the first President to indeed act towards entirely withdrawing then sure, I think you'd be foolhardy to argue otherwise. However, so far as I know he doesn't plan to withdraw any more forces than was planned under Trump, and until he actually pulls the troops out then I'll give him no credit; the delay to 9/11 was unnecessary as it is. Finally, from a semantical point of view, unless we pull out all advisors and special operations units then I hardly think it'll be considered a complete withdrawal, but that again is more a nitpicky determination than a major one.