Imagining a Trump 2.0 foreign policy

Favorable scenario doesn’t square with wild swings of his term in office

The issue with Trump’s foreign policy is that he says a lot, with little thought about how to implement policies systematically.

As a fellow millennial who is also an expert in international relations, I found Omer Aziz’s Ideas piece expressing optimism about foreign policy under a second Trump administration to be credulous at best, delusional at worst (“The best-case scenario for Trump’s foreign policy,” April 14). Aziz, a former foreign policy adviser, claims it is important to “think like a millennial” when discussing the desirable aspects of a Trump foreign policy, but it is possible to also think rationally.

It is true, as Aziz argues, that Donald Trump has talked about ending America’s endless wars. However, he also nearly started a war with Iran and was only stopped by intervention from top military advisers. It is also true that Trump, with his bullying trade rhetoric, talked about helping US workers, but if his policies were to have been enacted, they would have harmed US consumers and, by extension, US workers. It is true that Trump was on “good terms” with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, but this had little substantive impact on nuclear tensions with that country and followed unnecessary brinkmanship by Trump.

The issue with Trump’s foreign policy is that he says a lot, with little thought about how to implement policies systematically. It concerns me to see a contributor to the Ideas section fall for Trump’s rhetoric.

PETER HENNE South Burlington, Vt.

The writer is an associate professor of political science at the University of Vermont.

The world faces challenges that call for American leadership role

As the world’s largest economy, with China a distant second, the United States has preeminent responsibility in the world’s affairs. Omer Aziz conflates isolationism and unilateralism. Isolationism is exemplified by the period after World War I, when the United States declined to join the League of Nations, enabling the rise of fascism; unilateralism by the second Iraq War, when we needlessly attacked another country, leading to continuing unintended consequences.

The world faces unprecedented challenges that require American leadership, the gravest of which is climate change. Another example of isolationism is Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, and he promises to do more damage if elected again (“drill baby, drill”).

Given what he did in his first term and what the likely outcome would be if he is elected again, the planet is in jeopardy.

KEN CULBERT Canton

Analysis of issues that are of interest to voters is a refreshing change

It was refreshing to read, in Omer Aziz’s essay, an analysis of issues in the presidential election rather than personalities. It seems as if half of the country think Donald Trump is a loudmouth buffoon and half think President Biden is debilitated by the ravages of age. Both camps may be right, but thinking about what the respective candidates would do with another term in office, rather than attacking either of them personally, benefits people who are deciding who to vote for.

JOHN MCCULLOUGH Brookline

A generation defined by ‘endless war’? Talk to those on the front lines.

I found it absurd that Omer Aziz would make the assertion that he and his generational cohort have been leading lives defined by “endless war.”

It is the men and women stationed in the Middle East in these years who have endured war and its consequences, not Aziz and his fellow millennials.

They must have been spiking the sherry in the faculty lounge when he was a Radcliffe fellow.

MARTIN COMACK Somerville