President’s dangerous disconnect
U.S. policy fails to align with Trump bluster on N. Korea
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s threats against North Korea have highlighted as never before the tension between the president’s duties as chief executive and the role he often seems to prefer as the country’s highest-profile TV and internet commentator.
Despite Trump’s blustery warning of “fire and fury,” which he amplified further in comments to reporters Thursday, warships are not known to be moving toward the Korean Peninsula, a tactic deliberately publicized during previous tense times to signal U.S. resolve. The U.S. has not reinforced troop levels in South Korea, as former President Bill Clinton was about to do in 1994 when the two countries did come to the brink of war. U.S. dependents have not been ordered out, nor have U.S. nuclear weapons been sent back into South Korea.
Instead, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Americans should “sleep well at night” and has pressed for talks, albeit with preconditions that the North Koreans have not been willing to meet.
On Thursday, even as Trump said his previous statements were perhaps not “tough enough,” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis emphasized diplomacy.
“Do I have military options? Of course I do. That’s my responsibility,” Mattis told reporters as he flew to Seattle for meetings with tech industry officials.
“But what we’re trying to do here is leave it loud and clear ... in the diplomatic arena: It is North Korea’s choice. Do you want a much better future — the entire world community is saying one thing — or do you want a much worse future?”
The contrast may be a good cop/bad cop effort by the president and his Cabinet members. But the open confirmation by administration officials this week that Trump ad-libbed his “fire and fury” declaration without consulting his main advisers on the wording suggests more a sudden impulse than a carefully considered tactic.
The frequent disconnect between Trump’s words and actual policy has been visible for months. On major issues — health care, trade, taxes — as well as on more specific questions such as whether transgender Americans may serve in the military, Trump has made declarations that the rest of the administration and Congress have often ignored or sidetracked.
In the standoff with North Korea, where miscommunication or misunderstanding could trigger a war, the question of how to react to Trump has taken on tremendous gravity.
“Seriously, but not literally” is the phrase coined by one writer during the presidential campaign and adopted by some of Trump’s aides ever since.
U.S. officials can only guess how Kim Jong Un, the North Korean leader, might interpret Trump’s words. Foreign governments typically have a hard time interpreting U.S. politics and the free-wheeling nature of American TVdriven discourse. That’s even more true in North Korea, whose leaders have minimal contact with Americans.
Both sides will also be waiting to see how other countries, especially China, enforce the new economic sanctions against North Korea that the U.N. Security Council approved Saturday. Some foreign policy analysts believe Trump’s rhetoric might prompt China to crack down on North Korean trade in the hopes of pressuring Pyongyang into negotiating. Others think the president’s blunt language could have just the opposite effect.
Even in Washington, interpretations of Trump have varied widely. Some officials have reacted to Trump’s words in ways that underline a remark Anthony Scaramucci, Trump’s short-lived communications director, made shortly before he lost his job: “There are people inside the administration who think it is their job to save America from this president,” he said in an interview with CNN.
By contrast, some of Trump’s closest acolytes have depicted his comments in heroic terms.
“This is analogous to the Cuban missile crisis,” White House aide Sebastian Gorka declared on “Fox & Friends,” as he exhorted Americans to unite behind the president.
The current standoff and the Cuban one more than a half century ago, however, differ in nearly all important respects but one — both featured new presidents being tested by a high-stakes confrontation involving nuclear weapons.
The Cuba crisis involved two nuclear-armed powers deliberately taking steps that threatened war, steadily escalating until both found a formula that allowed them to back down. It also featured a president, John F. Kennedy, who micromanaged each moment of the standoff, as historical accounts have shown.
Trump has ducked in and out of the Korea crisis, taking occasional meetings between vacation rounds of golf at his resort in Bedminster, N.J. He has seemed mostly content to allow others, especially Tillerson and Mattis, to manage the situation.
Having said his piece on North Korea on Tuesday, Trump appeared for a couple of days to have moved on. Wednesday and Thursday, before renewing his rhetorical volleys at Kim, Trump had a new target in his sights, his party’s leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell.
In a series of messages on Twitter, he sharply criticized the Kentucky senator for having failed to deliver a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The jabs disturbed Republican officials, who questioned how a feud would help their legislative agenda. But for Trump, that may be secondary. He was back in his element as commentator in chief.