There’s an interesting article by Robin Wright at New Yorker that reflects some of my concerns about the changing roster of foreign policy resources in the Trump Administration. Here’s a telling quote from diplomat Richard Boucher:
“I don’t know if it’s a victory by the über-hawks, but it reflects a mind-set about how Trump sees the world. He relies on generals,†Boucher told me. “He’s looking for people who see every problem as a threat that needs to be dealt with by military force, rather than an issue that can be countered through diplomacy. There’s an over-all failure by this Administration to understand what diplomacy can do for the country—and the world.â€
There’s more than one thing I find compelling about the quotation. Not every problem is a threat, not every threat calls for the use of military force, and there are more alternatives than military force, diplomacy, or military force and diplomacy.
Most real-world problems in foreign policies don’t have solutions. They’re “wicked problems” that require a process rather than a solution. Viewing every risk as a problem to be solved narrows the focus too much.
U. S. foreign policy is an emergent phenomenon. The absurd Logan Act notwithstanding, U. S. foreign policy is not the sole domain of the president who chooses between the Department of Defense (military force) and the Department of State (diplomacy). Every large company or NGO CEO and every company or individual who buys from Ali Baba is conducting foreign policy. It’s the sum of all of those that go to make up U. S. foreign policy and, frankly, private companies and individuals have been a lot more influential in shaping our foreign policy than the generals at the DoD or the cookie-pushers at State. The White House, Pentagon, and Foggy Bottom have been doing an enormous amount wrong for a very long time while private companies and individuals are doing a lot right.
I don’t get it. President Trump always clearly identifies American interests in any situation. then lays out solutions that may cost our adversaries money, but not war. He’s in OUR corner,and I still trust his instincts.
Gray,
What are the interests he’s identified as related to foreign policy? So far he seems to be acting in Israel’s interest more than the American people’s.
I’d phrase it a little differently. How is starting a war with Iran in our interests? I can see taking Iran out as being in Israel’s interest. How is arming the Saudis to fight the Yemenis in our interest? How is starting a war with the Russians in our interest? North Korea? China?
I’d take the argument up to sixty thousand feet. How has the State Dept done? How has Pentagon done? Piss poor.
Seems to me Trump is trying to stop dicking around and put back costs to those who benefit. He gets criticized for that. Diminishing our standing you see. Why?
The Pentagon has actually done very well. It has accomplished the military goals set for it. That it hasn’t accomplished the political goals set for it is like complaining that you can’t drive a nail with a screwdriver.
The Pentagon’s biggest failure is not making clear the limits of military force in achieving strategic ends. They may have made such concerns privately, but they should also make it publicly in testimony before Congress. The only time that’s recently happened was when the Obama administration wanted to do strikes in Syria and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs basically said they made no sense.
Well, Dave, that’s from the perspective of their objectives.
I doubt those are your objectives, they are not my objectives, and I doubt they are The Average Joe’s objectives.