Trump deviates, turns meddlesome
Candidate Donald Trump offered a sharp break from his predecessors. Indeed, he generally kept his commitment not to include in his administration “those who have perfect resumes but very little to brag about except responsibility for a long history of failed policies and continued losses at war.”
Candidate Trump appeared to offer not so much a philosophy as an inclination. Practical-minded, he cared more for consequences than his three immediate predecessors, who treated wars as moral. In contrast, Trump promised: “unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my first instinct.”
Yet so far the Trump administration is shaping up as a disappointment for those who hoped for a break from the liberal interventionist/neoconservative synthesis.
The first problem is staffing. In Washington people are policy. Rex Tillerson, James Mattis, and Herbert McMaster are all serious and talented, but all seem inclined toward traditional, hawkish foreign policy approaches and committed to moderating their boss’s unconventional thoughts.
Moreover, President Trump appears to be most concerned with issues that have direct domestic impacts, and especially with economic nostrums about which he is most obviously wrong. For instance, he’s long been a protectionist.
Unfortunately, the administration’s repudiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership was particularly damaging. His decision embarrassed Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and abandoned the economic field to the People’s Republic of China, which now will set the Pacific trade agenda.
On more abstract foreign policy issues President Trump seems ready to treat minor concessions as victories and move on. For years he criticized America’s Asian and European allies for taking advantage of U.S. defense generosity.
Yet Secretaries Mattis and Tillerson have insisted that Washington remains committed to the same alliances incorporating dependence on America. Worse, the president takes credit for the small uptick in military outlays by European NATO members which actually began in 2015. Yet no one believes, for instance, that Germany, which will go from 1.19 to 1.22 percent of GDP this year, will nearly double its outlays to hit the NATO standard of two percent.
Rapprochement with Russia appears dead in the water. Unfortunately, the president’s strange personal enthusiasm for Vladimir Putin undercut his otherwise sensible plan.
Moreover, President Trump faces strong political opposition. He also appears to have no appointees who share his commitment on this issue.
The president sometimes appears to be heading in the opposite direction regarding China. How best to handle America’s one potential peer competitor is a matter of serious debate, but even before taking office President Trump launched what appeared to be confrontation on multiple fronts: Taiwan, trade, South China Sea, North Korea. But lately the president appears to have launched a bromance with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Whether the administration will set priorities and take a more balanced approach as more seasoned Asia experts are appointed is yet to be seen.
The Trump policy in the Middle East seems in confused flux. During the campaign the president briefly pushed an “even-handed” approach to Israel and the Palestinians, before going all in backing the hardline Likud government’s practical repudiation of a two-state solution and expanded colonization of the West Bank. Since then he has emphasized his desire to make a peace deal.
The president appears to be stepping into the Syrian and Iraq quagmires despite having criticized previous policy in the Mideast and promised to get out “of the nation-building business.”
The administration just introduced a Marine Corps artillery battalion and other forces to assist in capturing the ISIS capital of Raqqa, Syria. As president he also proposed creating “safe zones” in Syria, which would require an extensive and potentially long-term U.S. military presence. There are reports that the administration is considering an extended military role in Iraq as well.
Finally, in the campaign President Trump said America should end its longest war, in Afghanistan, which has devolved into a forlorn attempt to create a centralized, liberal democratic state in Central Asia. More recently, however, he indicated he planned to keep U.S. forces there and might even increase their number. There may be no conflict which less advances serious American interests than attempting to sustain an incompetent, corrupt, and failing central government in Kabul.
It remains early for the Trump administration, and the president still could move in a more pragmatic direction. However, without allies in his administration that prospect seems small. Hopefully the American people, having voted against the promiscuous military intervention of his predecessors, will not end up with more of the same foreign policy.