Donald Trump Has a Coherent, Radical Foreign Policy Doctrine

MojoMan · Jan 23, 2017

The article below very concisely and eloquently makes the case that Donald Trump has a foreign policy agenda that is coherent and rational, while also being quite 'radical'.

Donald Trump Has a Coherent, Radical Foreign Policy Doctrine

During the campaign for the American presidency, Donald Trump promised that in his administration only good things would happen. He was somewhat vague about what precisely was good and what was bad. In this, he was exactly like any other American presidential candidate. Unlike many, however, he provided some details of the specific issues that worried him, and a broader strategic vision. This vision was embedded in his unique rhetoric, but if we extract it, we have a clear roadmap. Trump’s rhetoric is a problem, but so is conventionally clear political rhetoric that clearly says nothing. I say this because I think that observers tend too readily to dismiss what he says. This is an attempt to decode it.

Trump’s core strategic argument is that the United States is overextended. The core reason for this overextension is that the United States has substituted a system of multilateral relationships for a careful analysis of the national interest. In this reading, Washington is entangled in complex relationships that place risks and burdens on the United States to come to the aid of some countries. However, its commitments are not matched by those countries in capability, nor in intent.

Overextension by Alliance

NATO is the obvious case. The United States has been involved in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the Islamic world. NATO has not provided decisive strategic support to these efforts. Many have provided what support they could or what support they wanted, but that level of support was far below the abilities of NATO members.

The members of the European Union have roughly the same collective gross domestic product as the United States, and a larger population. They also have a substantial industrial base. Europe is well beyond where it was when NATO was founded, when it was incapable of collective defense without the United States. NATO members have taken for granted that Washington will bear the primary burden for defense, measured not only in terms of dollars spent, but also in the development of military capabilities.

As important, the primary strategic activity of the United States for the past 15 years has been in the Islamic world. Many in NATO objected to the U.S. operation in Iraq, and except for the United Kingdom they provided little or no significant support. Alliance members have no obligation to join in conflicts initiated by the United States outside the area of NATO’s focus. Trump accepts that principle but points out that the organization has been irrelevant to U.S. strategic needs. Where the alliance engaged, it did so with far too little force to constitute a strategic force. Their reasonable argument that the 28-member alliance makes no commitment to out-of-area engagements not undertaken under Article 5 raises the question of what, then, NATO’s value is to the United States. In sum, NATO lacks significant strategic capabilities, and the alliance is defined in such a way that its members can and do elect to avoid those conflicts that matter most to America.

It is therefore not clear that NATO as currently constituted is of value to the United States. The United States is liable for the defense of Europe. Europe is not liable for defending American interests, which today lie outside of Europe. Trump believes this relationship must be mutually renegotiated. If the Europeans are unwilling to renegotiate, the United States should exit NATO and develop bilateral relations with countries that are capable and are prepared to work with the United States in areas of its national interest in return for guarantees from Washington. Similar re-examination of our relationships ought to be carried out globally in regard to allies such as Japan and South Korea to assure that such relationships remain of value to both parties, and that the level of effort and risk reflects that value.

Trading Benefits

The same view holds true for Trump’s policy on foreign trade. It is not clear that the current international trade regime has benefited the United States. International trade is not an end in itself; it must serve the interests of each party. At this point in history, the primary economic need in the United States is to create trade relations that build jobs in the United States. The previous goal of aggregate growth of an economy without regard to societal consequences is no longer acceptable. The terms under which most international trade agreements have been structured are now therefore unacceptable. Free trade may well increase the GDP, but it does not deal with critical societal issues.

Large multilateral free-trade agreements are therefore far too complex to fine-tune to the American interest. They need to be avoided in favor of bilateral treaties, or of smaller ones such as NAFTA, that can be reshaped to serve the current American interest. In these negotiations, the United States, producing about 25 percent of the world’s GDP, holds the strong hand. The United States’ primary concern must be the same as that of other countries: trade relations that are beneficial to it, and not an abstract commitment to free trade.

Compelling China

China is a special case. It is a massive economy that is highly dependent on exports to America. It has offered an environment where U.S. companies can transfer production and increase their revenue and profits while hollowing out the American industrial base. That situation won’t continue. At this point the Chinese dependence on the United States is substantially greater than the reverse. In addition, the United States has a strategic advantage over China, demonstrated by Trump’s willingness to disregard the One China concept. The United States currently has the economic and strategic advantage to negotiate a new relationship with China, and to compel that negotiation.

The End of Multilateralism

The United States’ central preoccupation in foreign policy -- one shared by other countries -- is Islamic radicalism, especially in its latest manifestation, the Islamic State. ISIS poses a terrorist threat that has been minimized by some but is regarded by Trump as an intolerable menace for two reasons. First, as 9/11 demonstrated, attacks can be escalated. Second, the psychological burden of terrorism is enormous. The terrorist threat cannot be defeated without overwhelming power being brought to bear on the Middle East. Living with terrorism indefinitely is not an option. Therefore, the United States and its allies must bring overwhelming force to bear.

The United States is ready to work with any ally prepared to dedicate resources to this goal and to share risks. This includes Russia, which has an internal problem with Islamic terrorists and has significant capabilities it could deploy. Trump sees U.S. and Russian interests as coinciding. Washington and Moscow could agree on the neutralization of Ukraine: Kyiv would have economic and political ties with the West, but Ukraine would not be part of any alliance system, nor would it be a base for Western forces. The United States wants a buffer to protect allies in Eastern Europe, but beyond that it has no overriding interest in Ukraine. Russia wants a degree of autonomy in Eastern Ukraine and retention of its interests in Crimea, where it has treaty rights in Sevastopol anyway. The Ukrainian issue can be managed in the context of joint anti-Islamist operations. Trump is of course aware of economic problems in Russia, and he sees therein a lever to achieve his goal.

For Trump, the key is to recognize that the Post-World War II period of multilateralism is over, and that continuing to act otherwise is harming the United States’ interests in multiple ways. For the United States 9/11 remains a defining moment, and 15 years of unsatisfactory operations in the Middle East do not mean that a solution is unattainable. Since NATO members are either unwilling to commit to this effort, or have very little to commit, the United States seeks other nations with a common interest, and chief among those is Russia.

Trump has actually said most of these things in a rather disjointed way. But if we ignore rhetorical flaws and look at the substance of what he has said, he has a coherent and radical foreign policy. Trump is proposing a redefinition of U.S. foreign policies based on current realities, not those of 40 years ago. It is a foreign policy in which American strength is maximized in order to achieve American ends.

Whether he will pursue this once in office, or whether it is a good policy, is not the key point; that there is a very real policy embedded in his statements is. It is also not a foolish one. U.S. policy has been reflexively committed to arrangements that are three-quarters of a century old. The world has changed, but the shape of U.S. policy has not. Translating this into reality will be, for Trump, another matter.
Click to expand...

MojoMan · Jan 23, 2017

To contrast, Obama's foreign policy was not radical from the perspective of history, but it was weak, ineffectual and irrational, and it was not demonstrably coherent. Domestically, Obama pursued a globalist 'Open Society' political correctness agenda that was in complete accord with the thinking of multi-billionaire radical George Soros. So it was on the domestic side that Obama was a radical, as the leaders of European countries and the EU simultaneously were as well.

Trump is pointing towards being a non-radical domestically and quite radical internationally, openly rethinking the international order in a rational way that has the real possibility of forcing this order to be reshaped in spectacular fashion, if he continues on the track he currently appears to be on.

On NATO, he rightly observes that the Europeans are not pulling their own weight and that this alliance is extremely one sided, with us paying the costs and providing the resources that make it work, while they sit for the most part idly by. Trump has correctly offered similar observations about our relationship with South Korea and Japan.

On Islamic radicalism, Trump sees Russia as a significant potential partner with mutual interests in confronting this threat, and is prepared to partner with them towards this end. The EU aside from the UK has not helped in any appreciable way. This is the major international threat of our time. True, the Russians are not our friends, but they are not openly trying to attack innocent civilians in our country and around the world just to terrorize them and ultimately to dominate them in a global jihadist caliphate.

On China, Trump correctly sees them as being less strong than many seem to want to give them credit for. If they really were the direct threat they are sometimes considered to be, then why are huge numbers of the newly minted rich in China doing everything they can to expatriate their wealth to our country? Nevertheless, the Chinese government is a bellicose lot. Reworking the arrangements of our relationship with China could get interesting.

So Trump's foreign policy, including trade, appears to be quite rational and coherent, even though it is a radical departure from the post World War II approach that has pretty clearly run its course. It is time for these matters to be revisited in a substantial and considerate way that takes our interests into account the way that other countries take their interests into account. That is radical, but it is also the right thing for Donald Trump and us to do.

generalthade_03 · Jan 23, 2017

A dawn of a new day in America and around the world. Lefties are crying and cursing everywhere.

MojoMan · Jan 23, 2017

generalthade_03 said: ↑

A dawn of a new day in America and around the world. Lefties are crying and cursing everywhere.
Click to expand...

About Trump and the Democrat party's losses maybe. But what is there in what Trump's apparent foreign policy objectives, as described in the article in the OP, that is fundamentally objectionable to the lefties? They periodically make many of these same observations and advocate similar policy directions.

As far as the foreign policy direction being proposed (forget about Trump for a minute), I see no legitimate, practical reason why these proposals have to be problematic for most people on the left. If Barack Obama had taken these exact same directions, they would have been cheering hysterically.

sirbaihu · Jan 23, 2017

NATO is a defensive alliance, not an offensive tool. I'm surprised the author considers whether NATO helped out American invasions of other countries. Further, as we know from WW1 and WW2, world wars start in Europe. You can go ahead and say the occurrence of WW2 was in US interests, but I think most people would rather have deterred the whole thing if possible. One thing you can say: there hasn't been large-scale war in Europe since NATO was founded.

JuanValdez · Jan 23, 2017

I agree with you that Trump's foreign policy has a logic to it, and that is a radical departure from the status quo. I also agree that Obama's foreign policy was not radical at all. In general, Obama was not a change president; he was an elitist, status quo president. I wouldn't say his policy was irrational. The biggest feature was pivoting his attention to China and the Pacific, which seems pretty reasonable if you believe, as I do, that China is the new hegemon-to-be. Trump's foreign policy, though logical, is built on axioms I don't ascribe to -- like the idea that Islamic terrorism is our primary concern -- and I find the wisdom faulty. Getting in bed with a dictator in Russia, taking a hostile stance to Islamic civilization, underestimating China, taking short-term hard benefits over long-term soft benefits, eschewing complexity because it's complex.

So, if you're fielding criticisms that Trump's foreign policy makes no rational sense, go ahead and argue and you'll get no argument from me. My criticism is that his foreign policy is foolish.

AroundTheWorld · Jan 23, 2017

As much as I think Obama is much more likeable on a personal level, I think history might end up looking at Obama as a very weak president when it comes to foreign policy. Jury obviously still out on Trump, but as much of an unbearable narcissist as he is, his foreign policy decisions might be more aligned with my views. Case in point, calling a spade a spade when it comes to Islamic terrorism and intolerance (in contrast to Obama, who always made a painstaking effort to hold up the lie that "Islam has nothing to do with it"), and also supporting Israel, which a US president (and German chancellor) always should. I think Trump will beat Obama hands down when it comes to these two points.

DaDakota · Jan 23, 2017

Maybe we can finally get that Iraqi war paid for which W promised, that the oil would pay for involvement.

BTW - anyone else find it hilarious that he thinks the USA is extended when he himself had a 900+ million dollar loss?

DD

Amiga · Jan 23, 2017

Yes, everyone for themselves and may the strongest win is a radical change. I can see the benefits of it and I can damn see the dangers of it.

fchowd0311 · Jan 23, 2017

Damn what is up with all these Trump whisperers? Don't they realize that he merely just says what ever the **** is at the top of his?

Trump pukes out a salad of words, his acolytes pick out the proper nouns in said gishgallop such as Aleppo and GINA and they fill in the blanks with wishful thinking.

He has no plan. He is ahistorical. He knows nothing about foreign policy. Mojoman, if you honestly believe otherwise, I honestly don't know how you survived college.

cml750 · Jan 23, 2017

Only time will tell how Trump's foreign policy goes. The last 8 years has been a cluster**** when it comes foreign policy. Obama will go down as the worst foreign policy President in history. Trump would have to work really hard to be as bad as Obama in that department. One thing, I think we will thankfully see is our country embracing Israel after Obama treated them so badly. Hopefully he can do something about the shameful Iran deal that was the ultimate embarrassment to the Obama legacy which is truly saying something when you consider how bad EVERYTHING he did turned out.

Dairy Ashford · Jan 23, 2017

cml750 said: ↑

Only time will tell how Trump's foreign policy goes. The last 8 years has been a cluster**** when it comes foreign policy. Obama will go down as the worst foreign policy President in history. Trump would have to work really hard to be as bad as Obama in that department. One thing, I think we will thankfully see is our country embracing Israel after Obama treated them so badly. Hopefully he can do something about the shameful Iran deal that was the ultimate embarrassment to the Obama legacy which is truly saying something when you consider how bad EVERYTHING he did turned out.
Click to expand...

Dude if you weren't just daydreaming about Norma McCorvey's baptism you'd realize there were even worse Democrats at foreign policy than Obama.

fchowd0311 · Jan 23, 2017

AroundTheWorld said: ↑

As much as I think Obama is much more likeable on a personal level, I think history might end up looking at Obama as a very weak president when it comes to foreign policy. Jury obviously still out on Trump, but as much of an unbearable narcissist as he is, his foreign policy decisions might be more aligned with my views. Case in point, calling a spade a spade when it comes to Islamic terrorism and intolerance (in contrast to Obama, who always made a painstaking effort to hold up the lie that "Islam has nothing to do with it"), and also supporting Israel, which a US president (and German chancellor) always should. I think Trump will beat Obama hands down when it comes to these two points.
Click to expand...

I'm still trying to find a coherent argument of our executive branch making theological claims. Bush Jr. AND Obama both agreed that criticizing Islam wasn't the answer. The only reason I can think of is to perpetuate the circle jerk.

Amiga · Jan 23, 2017

fchowd0311 said: ↑

I'm still trying to find a coherent argument of our executive branch making theological claims. Bush Jr. AND Obama both agreed that criticizing Islam wasn't the answer. The only reason I can think of is to perpetuate the circle jerk.
Click to expand...

Criticizing Islam as a whole is the golden bullet answer to Islamic terrorist. If not, not sure why it's so important. No, it is. Weird.

dmoneybangbang · Jan 23, 2017

1) Why would NATO join the US in the folly that was and is the Iraq and Afghanistan War? They certainly felt the repercussions of it as terrorism grew greatly after those wars of choice. NATO sure has been aiding in bombing ISIS and terrorists in Iraq, Syria, and Libya.

2) In 1996 world GDP was ~ $31 trillion and 2016 it was ~$74 trillion. We have more than doubled the world GDP in 20 years with global growth and folks are surprised that the growth mostly benefited where the growth is? Why will anything change without demand side policies? Raising tariffs will be retaliated against.

3) China will never grow again like it did from 2000-2012. Next up is India.

4) What exactly does Russia want?

Invisible Fan · Jan 23, 2017

AroundTheWorld said: ↑

As much as I think Obama is much more likeable on a personal level, I think history might end up looking at Obama as a very weak president when it comes to foreign policy. Jury obviously still out on Trump, but as much of an unbearable narcissist as he is, his foreign policy decisions might be more aligned with my views. Case in point, calling a spade a spade when it comes to Islamic terrorism and intolerance (in contrast to Obama, who always made a painstaking effort to hold up the lie that "Islam has nothing to do with it"), and also supporting Israel, which a US president (and German chancellor) always should. I think Trump will beat Obama hands down when it comes to these two points.
Click to expand...

Obama's fp has been maligned, but I think he inherited a situation where US intervention was deeply unpopular both home and abroad. The "Coalition of the Willing" exposed gaps and differing attitudes between the US and it's core allies, where some of the traditional partners didn't even show up at all.

While the right saw Obama's gesture of conferring with other NATO leaders as kowtowing or "leading from behind" it put to test the European's willingness beyond talking and pontificating and into actionable measures. Some traditional actions were successful such as enacting and maintain sanctions upon human rights violators. The cluster**** lays in direct intervention such as the overthrow of Ghadafi and the West's reaction to the Arab Spring. There you saw Obama throwing his partners under the bus in his later interviews for their minging and freeloading.

This might set up the stage for a return of the US throwing the punches while her allies pay the check. I think it's doubtful as it's crazy unpopular, but that way seems to produce more results than the mess Obama tried carrying out.

Building and pushing coalitions seemed great on paper. Carrying it out was harder as many of the partners are all bark, no bite.

hlcc · Jan 24, 2017

Indeed, a very coherent foreign policy strategy.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/trump-u-s-may-get-another-chance-to-take-iraqi-oil.html

MojoMan · Jan 25, 2017

We are overextended internationally and have been arguably since WWII. What is especially interesting about that is that we pay the freight for our international police service, and in many ways, we pay an oversized cost for propping up an international trading system that has to some extent been designed to get disadvantaged countries (basically everyone but us) economically modernized after the devastation of WWII. Many of the countries that have benefited the most from this were economically undeveloped prior to WWII, so this has been an effort towards promoting economic equality at a national level.

It reminds me of our domestic affirmative action policies in many ways, in that it gives favoritistic treatment to certain groups based on their economic disadvantage. Some of this made sense for a long time for various reasons, in my opinion. But now that these policies have done what they reasonably can, it is time to phase them out and to go for an approach that prioritizes more fair and equal treatment in these matters. The process of ratcheting down our domestic affirmative action policies has been underway for roughly 20 years. Now we need to do the same with our trade and international policing policies. Yes, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth by those who continue to depend on these deferential policies for their success. But it has come to the point where the transitional post-WWII assistance period has gone on long enough. It has been 70 year now, for crying out loud.

It is about time and I could have seen a previous generation Democrat President instigating all of this. But they didn't, being instead increasingly devoted to an agenda of elitist, establishment led globalism and politically correct socialism which was happy to see the US brought down "to size".

It does not appear that Trump's goal is to diminish any of these other countries, but to do the best he can for the people of our own country. Our nation has done a lot for the world and we will continue to do so, even under Trump. But now he is right to want to reexamine the international order and to look after our own non-elitist "little people," certainly to a greater degree than we have been in recent years. It appears that Donald Trump is intent on pursuing just such a radical agenda.

FranchiseBlade · Jan 25, 2017

So Trump is going on talking about committing war crimes with the idea of taking Iraqi oil.

What worries me more than that was something I saw on the news. There is video on social media circulating in Iraq of Donald Trump talking over and over about taking Iraqi oil. So that is happening while he wave American Troops in Iraq. Is Trump painting a huge bullseye on the back of our troops there, by giving Iraqis reason to believe those troops are in their nation to take away their oil and the greatest resource the nation has.

DaDakota · Jan 25, 2017

FranchiseBlade said: ↑

So Trump is going on talking about committing war crimes with the idea of taking Iraqi oil.

What worries me more than that was something I saw on the news. There is video on social media circulating in Iraq of Donald Trump talking over and over about taking Iraqi oil. So that is happening while he wave American Troops in Iraq. Is Trump painting a huge bullseye on the back of our troops there, by giving Iraqis reason to believe those troops are in their nation to take away their oil and the greatest resource the nation has.
Click to expand...

Hey Bush promised that Iraqi oil would pay for us liberating that country, they owe us, right? At least a cut....

DD

Forums

Donald Trump Has a Coherent, Radical Foreign Policy Doctrine

MojoMan Member

MojoMan Member

generalthade_03 Member

MojoMan Member

sirbaihu Member

JuanValdez Member

AroundTheWorld Member

DaDakota Balance wins
Supporting Member

Amiga Member

fchowd0311 Member

cml750 Member

Dairy Ashford Member

fchowd0311 Member

Amiga Member

dmoneybangbang Member

Invisible Fan Member

hlcc Member

MojoMan Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

DaDakota Balance wins
Supporting Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Donald Trump Has a Coherent, Radical Foreign Policy Doctrine

MojoMan Member

MojoMan Member

generalthade_03 Member

MojoMan Member

sirbaihu Member

JuanValdez Member

AroundTheWorld Member

DaDakota Balance wins Supporting Member

Amiga Member

fchowd0311 Member

cml750 Member

Dairy Ashford Member

fchowd0311 Member

Amiga Member

dmoneybangbang Member

Invisible Fan Member

hlcc Member

MojoMan Member

FranchiseBlade Member Supporting Member

DaDakota Balance wins Supporting Member

Share This Page

DaDakota Balance wins
Supporting Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

DaDakota Balance wins
Supporting Member