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.
@ babushka:
Babs Darlin, you use to be clever ????
yamit and ross have apparently made a Youtube video articulating their most compelling arguments for Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_RwE4jjDF0
Avigail Said:
Yawl don’t sabe a Texas accent none, Sugar.
Keli-A Said:
babs no longer even makes arguments or discusses issues…. babs now only insults because babs went bankrupt intellectually
There is no cure for what ails you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3R2Lm5kh-E
@ Keli-A:
whose the guy who introduced trump with his own speech on this video. There was nothing in that Watertown speech that I did not agree with.
@ honeybee:
Perry doesn’t speak in tongues. He stutters in tongues. 😉
@ Keli-A:
@ Avigail:
@ bernard ross:
All of yawl give up this nonsense for false prophets and support the one and only true candidate who truly does ” speak in tongues” GOVENOR RICK PERRY OF TEXAS “.
And he’s good looking.
@ Teshuvah:
And of course, anyone disagreeing with you on a talkback is either disobeying G-d or is “unrepentant”.
Get lost.
@ Keli-A:
Between Laura’s profanity and this one who thinks she’s a “bat-kol” or something, I’m beginning to understand why some people think the Cruz crowd is some sort of cult…
I’m not for one or the other, mainly I’m against the GOPe who is using Cruz to stop Trump getting to the 1,237 threshold, then will dump him asap at the Convention, a thing that doesn’t seem to bother the pro-Cruz here…
@ Keli-A:
good one
@ Keli-A:
I really enjoyed this video. Having been in construction and development it was really helpful for me to see Trump talk about his projects. I dont know whether people understood the enormous amount of detail, of approvals, of diplomatics, that were involved in his projects. I saw that he was not just a delegator but was very knowledgeable about the important issues in development. I have no doubt that he can handle everything involved in being president. I also saw how proud he was over his achievements and developments and that his pride was deserved. Projects and development can bring enormous satisfaction of accomplishment and that drive and personal pride is key to accomplishing where others have failed. His stories about taking over failed projects rang completely true, I have had similar but smaller experiences. I noticed that he was a completely different person talking about those real issues than the debates and I now realize that he likely despises going to debates as a do nothing endeavor. He is a doer, he has the ability and drive to get the things done. He can quickly assess due to his decades of experience what a problem is and how it can be solved… if he runs into problems he wont try to cover it up but will shift to another solution that works….. he is in a completely different world than the losers, do nothings, leeches against who he is running. I now see why he so despises those folks… he says the media is dishonest and we all know from Israel that he is 100% right. He will call a spade a spade. Interestingly your video nailed it for me by confirming what I beleived… also watching his family at the anderson town hall also showed me a different Trump. He is a billionaire but is down to earth and even arrogant, and why not, he has done more than those do nothing mouths that meke me want to puke.
good show Yamit, for posting this, others may not notice what I did but I was very impressed. He was involved with his projects all the way. Before I was going to vote for him but respect was not part of it… now he has gained some respect also from me. and I do like him kicking the asses of the liars and frauds.
Keli-A Said:
I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all
Keli-A Said:
Need we talk about the meaning of Shema?
Da 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and ***none of the wicked shall understand;*** but the wise shall understand.
“Naaseh V’Nishma”
https://www.ou.org/holidays/shavuot/naaseh_vnishma/
“We will do first, ***and afterwards,*** understand” (Shemot 24:7)
God gives understanding only to those who obey Him, not to the unrepentant.
Keli-A Said:
Babs has been feeding on Jimsom Weed.
Teshuvah Said:
John 10:27. gospel of John most anitsemetic gospel in your NT Fuck John!!! Haaaaaaaaa
@ Avigail:
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Talks in tongues too 😛
@ babushka:
Ever think your failure to convince lies with you, your weak arguments and just plain knowing from past history you are always wrong?
@ Teshuvah:
You are at least as nutz as Beck. At least.
Avigail Said:
Have you never heard of the Hegelian Dialectic? Both sides (Democrat v. Republican) working supposedly in opposition but end up with the same goal. In this case a New World Order against Christians and Jews.
Yes, He does. He speaks to Laura as well. I can tell by what she writes.
“My sheep hear my voice…”
@ Laura:
Like what business???
Laura is McMurphy in “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest”. In the lunatic asylum, the sane one is always outnumbered. Keep providing the maniacs with reality therapy, Laura. I lost interest in trying to reason with crazed wolves who bay at the moon, but you are doing a valiant job.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGMsAYgoL3Y
@ Teshuvah:
Instead of listening to this nutcase, open your eyes and ears and listen to what anyone with two brain cells can predict from now on:
– If Trump is the nominee, the GOP will campaign for a Clinton/Sanders win
– If Cruz is the nominee, the GOP will campaign for a Clinton/Sanders win
– If Dumb*ss is the nominee (ie. a GOPe’s “anointed” at the Convention), the GOP won’t campaign at all and Clinton/Sanders will win.
Why?
Because the GOPe want Clinton/Sanders to win: they are not interested in winning the WH. Only their base is.
You seem to know a great deal about what “God” does and doesn’t. Does He speak to you or something?
Keli-A Said:
I agree with it all. He might not completely do things as he said, just like any businessman who starts a project and finds it must be changed… however, his starting perspective in all cases is accurate and that will be the basis for his directions. I dont expect him to spend all his time working out the details of a job which he hasnt yet taken.
Laura Said:
she lied about being knocked down and about the bruises, again, read the prosecutors report so you can stop posting misinformation here.
Laura Said:
did you ever notice how intelligent and articulate Ivanka is. Both daughters could not arise from the household of a woman hater… stop following BS narratives from conservative and leftist blogs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWk27WHHH2w
Laura Said:
I agree, Laura. Also Trump’s flip flopping makes him unstable as water and untrustworthy. Below Glenn gets more right than most who call themselves Christian but support Trump.
Glenn Beck Predicts Trump Will Campaign With Clinton if He Loses GOP Nomination
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/04/13/glenn-beck-predicts-trump-will-campaign-with-clinton-if-he-loses-gop-nomination/
It is really interesting who is for Trump and who is against him. It is as though God sprinkled Deception Dust over the world. Some hit by it receive it gladly and throw flowers at this Fascist. Others resist evil as they should. Remember the movie from the 50’s, Invasion of the Body Snatchers?
In a Slow-Motion “Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” Media Figures Embrace Trump One by One
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432708/donald-trump-media-supporters-principles-conservatism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fghvYB2Lt7I
@ Keli-A:
Trump is a fucking snake. The bastard has extensive business interests in Muslim countries.
@ Laura:
So what don’t ya like about his economic plan it’s on his website???
@ Laura:
I don’t like them much because they are big game hunters but I ain’t voting for them.
@ Laura:
It’s the single-most vital terror-related issue of our lifetime – and Cruz voted to do the opposite of what every American wanted done with the deal. Maybe he can explain why
This is your pro Israel Cruz…. He is a fucking snake and has knowingly condemended Israel by his vote and support for the Corker Bill.
Why did Ted Cruz give Obama executive action on Iran?
https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xla1/v/t1.0-9/12670352_2246599588696421_1535745683498788102_n.jpg?oh=32ffff8ecd253256c308a722831e92e0&oe=57ADBFDA
@ Keli-A:
He’s full of crap. Reagan would not. Like I said, his sycophants will twist themselves into knots to justify supporting him.
@ Laura:
http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/04/04/on-cnn-art-laffer-defends-trumps-lies-about-une/209724
@ Laura:
Art Lauffer says Trump has the best plan of all candidates
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuHWTWJwrCg
This is delusion. First of all, he is someone of very low character.
Being flexible is precisely his problem. There can be no flexibility regarding Israel/”Palestinians”. It’s a black and white issue. Trump doesn’t have the moral compass to see that.
It is precisely Cruz’s what you call “dogmatic” Christian faith which makes him a rock solid supporter of Israel.
It’s simply amazing how Trump followers will twist themselves into knots to justify their support for him. Now suddenly it’s better for Israel to gave a “flexible” American president than a Christian conservative.
@ bernard ross:
https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xla1/v/t1.0-9/12670352_2246599588696421_1535745683498788102_n.jpg?oh=32ffff8ecd253256c308a722831e92e0&oe=57ADBFDA
@ Keli-A:
There’s nothing even pragmatic about his stated economic policies. History shows us just how catastrophic they are.
Keep defending the fucking lying Pollack thug. And don’t complain about my language, I’m just being politically incorrect.
Trump is further to the left than Hillary on economics. He’s closer to Bernie. And he’s another Bill Clinton when it comes to women. But the deranged trumpets have separate standards for their leader.
@ bernard ross:
https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/10576988_10153377722511808_1156458337777925737_n.jpg?oh=f09c7925bf90ecde43db7aa65a632785&oe=577551F7
@ bernard ross:
We need a pragmatist not an ideologue…. whatever works for the best interests of the most. Republicans/ so called conservatives have been as duplicitous and harmful to middle America economically as have been the Democrats…. They have been the biggest robbers of the Social Security Trust fund Reagan and G W Bush the biggest thieves. Then they complain that they have to save it from default….is but one example they approved Nafta and are supporters of every trade agreement that have cost America her essential economic manufacturing base… Closed their eyes to other trading partners infringement and violations of agreements and there is no reason to believe Cruz will be any better. Besides he voted for the Corker Bill which shows where he really is on Israel…. Only Trump will be good for Israel because I believe his instincts are sound and he has character, not dogmatic and not likely to be swayed by others against his own instincts… Yes he will destroy Clinton and unite the country because he is flexible undogmatic and will do what is necessary. He is leading a populous movement that should grow in the coming months.
@ Keli-A:
She didn’t lie, lewandowski lied repeatedly.
@ bernard ross:
Our industrial base was declining long before Reagan. We were hardly doing great in the 70’s. You speak like a Marxist.
Did you ever notice how trump’s two fat little spoiled brats from his current marriage are mini me versions of himself?
Laura Said:
She was a shill for anti Trump groups /organizations or individuals and probably well paid. She was where she was not allowed invaded the protective space of the candidate the protective bubble the Secret Service had provided him and even touched Trump on the arm before the campaign manager rushed to push her back which was his job and duty. After watching the film, I saw there is no evidence. She was manhandled or treated in a way anyone who was violating that protective space would have been treated…. She lied about the event. She lied about the cause of her bruises and she waited 3 days before lodging a complaint. She was properly fired by a reputable employer who knew the inside scoop about her….. Don’t try to make a case against the campaign manager that is without foundation. I admire Trump for his loyalty to his employer and I believe he will as president be as loyal to friends of America like Israel.
If he was justified, then why lie and change story 9 times?
http://www.dailywire.com/news/5000/complete-timeline-lewandowskis-changing-positions-amanda-prestigiacomo
Keli-A Said:
there you go… the bottom line that cannot be erased with conservative trickle down BS.
Laura Said:
thats what we had prior to reagan, when the country was expanding and doing great.. the problem is that too much was trickling down before reagan
Laura Said:
we had all that prior to Reagan and did great, we also had a great export economy… since reagan it has been down hill with a couple of up blips during clinton. the rich got richer, 80% of gains goes to the top 20% according to the CIA.
Laura Said:
you make up your stories as you go along instead of reading what they actually said