Despite the bluster, Trump is articulating a bold vision of America’s role in the world. And it demands a serious response — not the snickering of D.C. elites.
By Rosa Brooks, FOREIGN POLICY
Oh, Donald, bless your heart! You keep on saying those wild and crazy things, the media keeps on snickering, and you just keep on blustering. A grateful nation thanks you. If you weren’t around, we’d probably have to talk about Ted Cruz instead, and that would be no fun at all.
But my editors here at Foreign Policy have asked me to get serious and write about what U.S. foreign policy would look like if the White House should ever sprout an enormous gold sign reading, “TRUMP.” This has not been a simple assignment, because there is a Trump for every possible policy position.
Where to start?
Well, if Donald Trump becomes president, we might have a nuclear war — or, then again, we might not. On the one hand, Trump tells us, “It’s a very scary nuclear world. Biggest problem, to me, in the world, is nuclear, and proliferation.” On the other hand, if Japan and South Korea decide to develop their own nuclear weapons, that’s probably fine, and we “may very well be better off.” On the third hand, “nuclear should be off the table,” when it comes to a potential U.S. first use of nuclear weapons. On the fourth hand, you never know: We might need to use nukes inside Europe, which would not be so sad because “Europe is a big place” and can easily afford to lose a few small nations to radioactive fallout.
Anyhoo. Let’s discuss NATO, which, admittedly, is not a very interesting subject. Trump “would support NATO,” but because he too feels that it is not interesting, he “would not care that much” whether or not Ukraine joins the alliance. “I don’t mind NATO per se,” he explains; it’s just “obsolete” and full of free-riders “ripping off the United State.” But que sera, sera! If getting rid of freeloaders “breaks up NATO, it breaks up NATO.” Still, perhaps the treaty organization can be “reconstituted” and “modernized.” He adds, “We need to either transition into terror, or we need something else, because we have to get countries together.” I don’t think Trump meant that NATO should transition into a terrorist organization — on the “fight fire with fire” principle — but who can say?
Moving right along: Under President Trump, the United States would show the terrorists who’s boss by bringing back waterboarding and “a hell of a lot worse.” He would also “bomb the hell out of ISIS,” and if that doesn’t do the trick, he would go after the wives and children of Islamic State fighters, because “with the terrorists, you have to take out their families.” Ordering the U.S. military to use torture or deliberately target civilians would, of course, be illegal, but the military would gladly obey any order coming from President Trump: “I’m a leader. I’ve always been a leader.… If I say do it, they’re going to do it.” On the fifth or sixth hand, maybe not: Trump swears that he’ll be “bound by laws, just like all Americans.”
Regardless, under President Trump, the U.S. military would be very strong, but it would never be used, unless we do use it. Right now, Trump confides, the U.S. military is “a disaster,” decimated and weak. When the White House is rebranded as the smallest of the world’s many Trump Towers, this will no longer be true; after a few waves of the Trumpian magic wand, which can cut budgets and expand programs at the same time, the military will be “so big, so powerful, so strong” that no one will dare mess with it. But the military will have to be satisfied with being big, powerful, and strong right here in the United States, because unless host states such as Japan and South Korea cough up a lot more cash, President Trump will be withdrawing U.S. troops from their overseas bases.
Besides, who cares? According to Trump, more or less every U.S. military intervention from Vietnam on has been a flop. Vietnam? A “disaster,” says his campaign. Iraq War? “Big, fat mistake.” Libya? “Total mess.” As for the Islamic State, Trump says “the generals” tell him it might take “20,000 to 30,000 troops” to “knock the hell out of ISIS,” but they ain’t gonna be American troops: instead, “People from that part of the world” will have to “put up the troops.… I wouldn’t ever put up 20,000 or 30,000.”
All right, enough. I could go on: Trump offers nearly endless fodder for media mockery. But I don’t want to keep poking fun at the Republican front-runner.
For one thing, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. It’s like making fun of George W. Bush’s weird malapropisms: “They have miscalculated me as a leader.” It’s just too damn easy.
For another thing, there’s hardly a global shortage of anti-Trump tiradescoming from the Fourth Estate. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell declares Trump is “completely uneducated about any part of the world.” The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson calls Trump’s “ignorance of government policy … breathtaking.” Tara Setmayer of CNN says Trump is “wholly unqualified” to be president, while the New York Times editorial board finds Trump “disturbing” and “shockingly ignorant.”
None of this does Trump any harm. On the contrary: Every time someone in the Media Elite pokes fun at Donald Trump, it inspires six bad-tempered middle Americans to vote for him.
None of this does Trump any harm. On the contrary: Every time someone in the Media Elite pokes fun at Donald Trump, it inspires six bad-tempered middle Americans to vote for him. And every time someone in the Media Elite utters a pompous condemnation of Trump’s ignorance and folly, 17 more angry Trump voters are created. If Trump becomes president, guys, it’s gonna be your fault.
And finally: Though it pains me to say it, Donald Trump is crazy like a fox. Despite the braggadocio, the bullying, and the bluster — despite the contradictions, misstatements, and near-total absence of actual facts — Trump is, to a great extent, nonetheless articulating a coherent vision of international relations and America’s role in the world.
David Sanger and Maggie Haberman capture it well in a summary of their lengthy New York Times interview with Trump: “In Mr. Trump’s worldview, the United States has become a diluted power, and the main mechanism by which he would re-establish its central role in the world is economic bargaining. He approached almost every current international conflict through the prism of a negotiation, even when he was imprecise about the strategic goals he sought.” The United States, Trump believes, has been “disrespected, mocked, and ripped off for many, many years by people that were smarter, shrewder, tougher. We were the big bully, but we were not smartly led. And we were … the big stupid bully, and we were systematically ripped off by everybody.”
Trump hasn’t the slightest objection to being perceived as a bully, but he doesn’t want to be ripped off. Thus, he says, he’d be willing to stop buying oil from the Saudis if they don’t get serious about fighting the Islamic State; limit China’s access to U.S. markets if Beijing continues its expansionist policies in the South China Sea; and discard America’s traditional alliance — from NATO to the Pacific — partners if they won’t pull their own weight.
To those who criticize his apparent contradictions, his vagueness about his ultimate strategic objectives, or his willingness to make public threats, he offers a simple and Machiavellian response: “We need unpredictability.” To Trump, an effective negotiator plays his cards close to his chest: He doesn’t let anyone know his true bottom line, and he always preserves his ability to make a credible bluff. (Here it is, from thetranscript of his conversation with the New York Times: “You know, if I win, I don’t want to be in a position where I’ve said I would or I wouldn’t [use force to resolve a particular dispute].… I wouldn’t want to say. I wouldn’t want them to know what my real thinking is.”)
Trump has little time for either neoconservatives or liberal interventionists; he thinks they allow their belief in American virtue to blind them to both America’s core interests and the limits of American power. He has even less time for multilateralist diplomats: They’re too willing to compromise, trading away American interests in exchange for platitudes about friendship and cooperation. And he has no time at all for those who consider long-standing U.S. alliances sacrosanct. To Trump, U.S. alliances, like potential business partners in a real-estate transaction, should always be asked: “What have you done for me lately?”
In his inimitable way, Trump is offering a powerful challenge to many of the core assumptions of Washington’s bipartisan foreign-policy elite. And if mainstream Democrats and Republicans want to counter Trump’s appeal, they need to get serious about explaining why his vision of the world isn’t appropriate — and they need to do so without merely falling back on tired clichés.
The clichés roll easily off the tongue: U.S. alliances and partnerships are vital. NATO is a critical component of U.S. security. Forward-deployed troops in Japan and South Korea are vital to assurance and deterrence. We need to maintain good relations with Saudi Arabia. And so on. How do we know these things? Because in Washington, everyone who’s anyone knows these things.
But this is pure intellectual and ideological laziness. Without more specificity, these truisms of the Washington foreign-policy elite are just pablum. Why, exactly, does the United States need to keep troops in Japan, or Germany, or Kuwait? Would the sky really fall if the United States had fewer forward-deployed troops? What contingencies are we preparing for? Who and what are we deterring, and how do we know if it’s working? Who are we trying to reassure? What are the financial and opportunity costs? Do the defense treaties and overseas bases that emerged after World War II still serve U.S. interests? Which interests? How? Does a U.S. alliance with the Saudis truly offer more benefits than costs? What bad things would happen if we shifted course, taking a less compromising stance toward “allies” who don’t offer much in return?
Questions like these are legitimate and important, and it’s reasonable for ordinary Americans to be dissatisfied by politicians and pundits who make no real effort to offer answers.
Trump’s vision of the world — and his conception of statecraft — isn’t one I much like, but it reflects a fairly coherent theory of international relations. It’s realist, transactional, and Machiavellian — and it demands a serious, thoughtful, and non-defensive response.
If those of us in the foreign-policy community can’t be bothered to offer one, a “TRUMP” sign on the White House may, in the end, be no better than we deserve.
Rosa Brooks is a law professor at Georgetown University and a Schwartz senior fellow at the New America Foundation. She served as a counselor to the U.S. defense undersecretary for policy from 2009 to 2011 and previously served as a senior advisor at the U.S. State Department.
Keli-A Said:
Its is primarily our consumer market which built up the chinese economy and military over the last 30 years
Keli-A Said:
Only the list price is cheaper because the tariffs are removed but the real price which the consumer will have to pay in taxes includes unemployment, welfare, lost jobs, lost production lost capital… Its a fraud, they promised lower costs but intentionally did not tell us about the real cost in real add ons. that is not paid by the foreign seller or importer but only by the taxpayer and consumer later. its a con and every economist knows it, a fake narrative of lower prices.
Keli-A Said:
exactly… They used our consumption engine to build their export economy into a consumption economy so that they could later also sell to the chinese consumers of 1.3 billion which will eclipse our deflated economy of 350 million paltry consumers. For them its a win win and with all the “free trade agreements” they will guarantee that the law will allow them to keep selling into our market without tariffs or taxes. its probably already too late so we will have to rely on trickle down from the chinese consumers in the future when they can finally afford to buy from us, if ever. This is not a cyclical recession… its a structural depression and they knew it was the inevitable outcome for our intentionally battered economy. Instead of our multinational corps using their money to develop a chinese consumer market they used our consumption dollars which they hijacked abroad by passing free trade laws to suit themselves and destroy us. In my view they deserve madame de farge…. bernie would be too gentle and weak. After their heads roll is when we could start fresh again with a free market capitalistic economy. 😛
@ bernard ross:
The secret service didn’t act. They knew there was no threat.
@ Keli-A:
Our industrial base was destroyed by unions, tons of regulations, high taxes and the EPA.
Free trade has given us an abundance of cheap products.
I hope you are willing to pay $2000 for an iPhone.
Laura Said:
Sorry, you are the one that repeatedly does not get it becuase you never read what is posted to you in reply. I posted to you that both the prosecutor AND the secret service said that campaign managers ARE allowed to prevent folks from entering the security bubble. Apparently you dont like to read the quotes I posted from them. Read the article and then you wont have to keep posting misinformation on this site.
Laura Said:
Again, you are ignoring facts, no question was being asked or even allowed to be asked because the press conference was over but she ran after him, entered the security bubble while leaving and reached out to grab his arm…. you appear to have a problem with facts and like to substitute your own narrative instead… all your unladylike adjectives do not change the facts. Try to read again and concentrate on the relevant facts as disseminated by the prosecutor and the Secret Service.
@ bernard ross:
There’s not much daylight between the economic policies of Bernie and drumpf.
I almost hope drumpf gets in so that you ignorant followers will see the colossal mistake you have made. You deserve the karma which will come your way. But he won’t get past Hillary. Do you wonder why the NY Post endorsed Trump even though they said they don’t agree with his stated view on immigration and other major issues? The editorial said they believe he will “pivot”. What does Rupert Murdoch know that we don’t?
@ Laura:
Not so America is still the best consumer market in the world. Jobs more important than cheaper goods most of which might not raise so much based on internal American competition… Trump is right the free traders have destroyed the American Industrial base made high % of the workforce redundant and helped to create a balance of trade deficit of almost a Trillion dollars against America. Tell me how that benefits America. Some corporations to be sure but for most Americans it’s been catastrophic.
@ bernard ross:
You don’t fucking get it that campaigns don’t have the right to manhandle reporters, MALE OR FEMALE, because they dont want uncomfortable questions being asked.
@ bernard ross:
I don’t support protectionism and tarffs, it would be catastrophic for the American consumer.
bernard ross Said:
Unfortunately no more eatable then any other welfare recipient. But they do sparkle in the sunlight. Do Remember they fed on Jimsom Weed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datura_stramonium
honeybee Said:
obviously “crony” capitalists, but like cruz they graze on our land and pockets and produce nothing… so in my view like cruz, they are no kind of capitalist… only talkers about capitalism.
On second thought, are they edible?
bernard ross Said:
No, they definitely not. They reside and graze on Govt. land.
honeybee Said:
are they free market capitalists?
Laura Said:
Cruz and Hilary are necking?????? I thought she likes girls ???
bernard ross Said:
We have Unicorns in Texas ! They live deep in the Chisos Mnts. of West Texas. They hid in the caves with yamit82 in the heat of the day and come out at night to graze on Jimsome Weed. White is a common color, pink ones are often seen.
Laura Said:
If you beleive that using tax credits and tax abatements which were put into law by politicians like cruz and rubio is “crony” capitalism then you are an ignorant fool. It is conservatives, republicans, not leftists who want tax abatements and tax credits…… leftists would leave the private sector out and have the gov make the investments directly. Trickle down is dead…. people saw what happened the last time they bought that unicorn fable…. they took the tax cuts and shipped out all the jobs. Of course, there is no accounting for the foolishness of the american voter who voted in a community activist named Hussein as their president after 911.
Laura Said:
So what !!!!!!!!
Laura Said:
Then why support Cruz, everybody in Texas knows he is in the pocket of “Big Oil” and cheap Mexican labor.
Laura Said:
you never replied to the specific criticisms I leveled at that ludicrous article that only an economic dunce could beleive. The reason is that you believed the ridiculous story becuase you have no idea what tax abatements and tax credits are and that it is folks like cruz and rubio who create them. You cannot reply to specific criticisms because you are ignorant of the issue, you simply repeat the articles laughable assertions like a parrot.
Laura Said:
Its not nice to call people frauds and schmucks because they dont agree with the conservative bible whose verses you cannot even cite. When it comes back to you will you also whine like Michelle, will you expect to be treated like a lady or an equal?
Laura Said:
If you knew anything about economics you would know that “free market capitalism” is as real as unicorns. That never existed even in the days of feudalism, serfdom and slavery. Those that promote the notion are the same ones who shipped all the jobs to china after promising that tax cutting would trickle down when in fact they took the tax cutting and then shipped out the jobs. Marie antoinette said let them eat cake and Mme de farge’s answer was simply to knit.
Laura Said:
so do you support the continued import of chinese goods, the continued shipping of jobs to china, the continued tax relief for US companies shipping jobs to china, the continued firing of US workers and forcing them to train subsequent imported asians…. is that what your conservative free market capitalist bible says?
Is that what you beleive americans are going to vote for….. perhaps you are right and they will…… after all, they elected the guy named hussein after 911. dont worry, you can feed them your bible when their food stamps are not enough to augment their walmart job. Lets see how they like that.
Do you support the TPP which your GOP establishment concocted with Obama?
@ bernard ross:
Yes you are and she is.
I know that trump was never a free market capitalist. He’s a crony capitalist who received corporate welfare.
New FOX poll: Trump thumped by Hillary in general, Cruz and Hillary neck and neck
http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2016/04/15/new-fox-poll-trump-thumped-by-hillary-in-general/
Laura Said:
so HB is a fraud and I am a shmuck… and yet you believe that Cruz is a free market capitalist when Cruz has never ran a business. I think you mean to say he is a free market talker who never did anything… except for that fillibuster he keeps boasting about. Imagine electing a guy whose main achivement in life is a fillibuster… thats almost as funny as electing a guy named Hussein as President after 911.
Laura Said:
shouldn’t you be citing chapter and verse of this “conservative” bible which you wave around…. how do we know that “bible” really says what you say?
@ bernard ross:
Laughable, clueless and ignorant describes yourself and any fool who’s backing that fraud drumpf, a crony capitalist who’s ripped off the taxpayers for his personal benefit. I know for a fact, the article is absolutely true. But don’t let the facts deter you.
@ honeybee:
He’s nothing of the kind. That is why he used taxpayers money to get wealthy. He’s for big government because he’s used it to his advantage, ripping off taxpayers for personal benefit. I support free market capitalism.
Laura Said:
how many times are you going to post this same link which I already demonstrated was ludicrous and written by a clueless fool…. did you think I would not notice 🙂
Apparently you have no interest in learning why the blog you read and post is laughable, clueless, ignorant. Are you hoping that by posting this again you can snare a fool?
Go back and read what I replied the first time you posted this ridiculous article that only a liar or a fool could write. Are you hoping that by posting this again you can snare an ignorant fool into beleiving that idiocy?
Laura Said:
your link shows no evidence of a grab, although we all agree he grabbed her arm and pulled her back from Trump after she breached the security bubble that every reporter knows not to breach. Its a storm in a teacup propagated by fakes and frauds who deserve ridicule for their attempt.
@ honeybee:
His ethnicity is Pollack.
Honeybee, you are a total fraud. Anyone who claims to be conservative, but rejects a constitutional, free market capitalist in favor of big government crony candidate IS A FRAUD.
Laura Said:
Intelligence and innovation and hiring the taxpayer.
Trump’s secret to getting rich? Shafting the taxpayer
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/04/trumps-secret-to-getting-rich
Laura Said:
Lewandowski is USA citizen who, as I and Yankee Boy, care about the future of this Great Nation. Cruz was born in Canada to a non-citizen Cuban Father and ex-pat Mother.
New FOX poll: Trump thumped by Hillary in general, Cruz and Hillary neck and neck
http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2016/04/15/new-fox-poll-trump-thumped-by-hillary-in-general/
Lyin’ Pollack lewandowski. All he had to do was apologize, but he claimed he never touched her.
http://theresurgent.com/florida-prosecutor-avoids-lewandowski-circus-but-he-did-grab-her/
bernard ross Said:
Cruz was born in Canada.
Laura Said:
She’s lucky the Secret Service didn’t “grab her up”.
Laura Said:
too tough???? He is so far ahead of Cruz and Kasich in the polls and since he “whined” about Colorado his poll jumped 6 points… seems to be ringing folks bells.
Kasich will soon overtake Cruz.
boo hoo, Michelle had her arm grabbed and was pulled back after grabbing the candidates arm…. and now the world is treated to this ridiculous attempt by the Cruz camp and the GOP to defame Trump and hinder his campaign management. IMO it was pre arranged, together with the Breitbart walkout by Shapiro and Weinstein to also try to hinder Brieitbart. According to witnesses she even tried to act out a pretend fall.
Laura Said:
Try to imagine a male reporter, after the end of the news conference when the candidate is leaving, rushing into the security bubble and grabbing the candidates arm and then being pulled back from the candidate by the candidates manager….. LOL, do you beleive he would be whining and filing a criminal charge?????? If he did he would be laughed out by the other reporters and called a girly boy. In fact, veteran female reporters are saying the same thing…. reporters are regularly pulled out of the way by managers and they dont whine afterwards. It is only because she is a woman that anyone takes her whining seriously, a man would be ridiculed. Hence, she is claiming special treatment after intentionally breaking the security protocol.
@ honeybee:
No one sounds more like a whiny pris than Trump. When did Michelle say she wants special treatment? It would be wrong if he had done the same to a male reporter, but he wouldn’t because lyin’ Lewandowski is a bully and coward.
Laura Said:
Out here in the Texas outback we have ” men’s job ” which have more to due with upper body strength.
As for Ms. Fielding , really, such a whinny little pris. Women in the West are tougher and don’t fall back on the femininity for special treatment. And we do it without using rough and vulgar language.
No one has whined like a little girl more than Trump during this campaign. Maybe politics is too rough and tough for him.
Taking oaths of allegiance to a leader is indicative of a fascist movement. We pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands.
Such a crock of shit. If this tiny woman with a pen was “attcking” him, the SS would have stepped in. Lyin’ Lewdowski was “protecting” trump from being asked questions he didn’t want to answer.
@ Laura:
In fact trump is a GOP version of Bill Clinton.
@ bernard ross:
Better a bible thumping Christian then a leftist and fascist. Cruz has moral values. Trump has none.
@ bernard ross:
Trump is a cartoon character.
@ bernard ross:
My conclusion that Trump is a misogynist comes from my observation of trump’s own behavior and comments, not anything coming from the Cruz camp. Cruz supporters think for ourselves, we are not a cult. We don’t need to be lead.
Laura Said:
LOL, I knew you would bite at that. obviously the job was too “manly” for her, too rough, too tough…. and yet every other female reporter before her, including Baba walters has experienced the same… as the men….. and not whined like little girls. But then no one paid them to come up with this fake “assault”
Laura Said:
Once more you demonstrate ignorance… read the articles I posted whereby both the prosecutor AND the Secret Service state that campaign managers do have a right to protect their candidate in the security bubble… stop trying to shortcut facts.
Laura Said:
on the contrary the prosecutor and the secret service said that she rushed into the security bubble and grabbed Trumps arm AFTER the conference was over…. against all known protocol for reporters. I think she was paid to do it because why would she do what she knows she should not do and then as a witness stated pretend to be falling?
Laura Said:
baloney, the prosecutor said the investigators determinined from the video that she was the “attacker” who was first to grab trump and Corey only pulled her back from attacking Trump.
Your investigation appears to be lacking compared to that of the prosecutor and the Secret Service.
Laura Said:
why should she be running after him and breaching the security bubble to ask “questions” AFTER the press conference was over???? Stop making up stories.
an opportunistic liar who may even have been paid to create the false event by your GOP establishment and Cruz.
Laura Said:
thanks for the compliment…. I know that NO crossover democrat and NO independent is likely to vote for Cruz who is almost a cartoon caricature of a bible thumping anointed teaparty candidate. I have no doubt that Trump can perform against any democratic candidate far better than Cruz… thats why they have kasich and rubio still in for a contested convention. If Cruz wins with his approx less than 30% of registered republicans he will lose by a landslide becuase in the end it will be independents and crossovers who determine the presidency.
LOL I saw pictures of beck calling Cruz the anointed one and wondered what “century they were living in”.