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:
Esav’s embrace… and then he bites you in the neck.
@ Keli-A:
I do grit my teeth. They surround me.
Avigail Said:
We, as our name sakes , are not fools or fould mouthed in oour support of Israel.
@ Avigail:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NUylyDsE-c
babushka Said:
Source Pls? Are you making this shit up as you plow thru your Never Land fantasies??
@ babushka:
I’m not “pro-Israel” living a thousand miles away from here. I’m Israeli. Now reread the posts (except your drivel) and then STFU.
@ Keli-A:
Whatever. There’s something wrong in this picture though: if she cared that much, she would understand why you told the American Jewry at large to go f*ck themselves without needing subtext. These guys have voted for Obummer twice, not once.
And that said, she doesn’t see anything wrong with Mike Bickle’s endorsment, you know the guy who promises us concentration camps if we don’t convert to his false religion?
Most (not all) of these guys have an agenda re. the Jews. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. Their mouths is full of blessings for Israel (because end times and Genesis 12:3) and their hearts full of hatred for the “Pharisees” that we are (that is whenever they meet a Jew not devoid of his own identity).
I’m not that gullible or weak, that’s all.
@ babushka:
Truly feeling sorry for you. Such an unsettled mind.
So Laura is an “unhinged moron” of undetermined gender because she fails to conform to the flatulent idiocy of the brain dead mutants who ghettoize the very lowest rung of the evolutionary ladder?
And this is the consensus that has been reached the Sorority of Sewer Rats?
My opinion of her just skyrocketed. She is hated by the most loathsome of vermin.
Laura is pro-Israel. The same is true for about five of us on the site. The rest are lowly court Jews for King Donald Of Orange.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_znfLnpHtZA
Keli-A Said:
Sir, yes Sir….
honeybee Said:
Then call me yamit82 LOL
@ honeybee:
Laura is not a man but she can cuss when pissed like a drunkin sailor…. She has not mellowed since I first met her 9 years ago !!!
@ honeybee:
Yes See (skype)
@ Keli-A:
What woman would ever doubt you.?? I bet you can make the Sun shine on a cloudy day. But your still half the man Yamit82 was. It’s the handle.
@ Avigail:
Laura is passionate in her concern and defense of Israel so I give her wide latitude and respect because she really cares. It took her many years to see I was right about BB….. 😀
@ Keli-A
Jews have a sell esteem issues. We need to be liked.
Keli-A Said:
John ???????
Gospel John. comprendo
Avigail Said:
No one is sure !!! Not even Laura.
@ Laura:
That’s what they said about the born again Bush and look how that turned out…. ????? Buy the steak not the sizzle. I don’t don’t believe any of them will be good for Israel. Why should they they are Americans with American interests not Israeli interests….. To my mind the best support for Israel is no support we would be much better off even with crud’s like BB as PM…..
@ honeybee:
Ask John the AH Jew hater his text not mine
@ honeybee:
What a strange moniker for a man: “grandmother”, really?
And are you telling me that “Laura” is a man too? lol
Avigail Said:
I didn’t think it was you. I always think it’s rather silly for women to threaten one another with an act they incapable of preforming.
You and I Darlin, are only Ladies on the pundit. I think Babushka is really a man.
Avigail Said:
I didn’t think it was you. I always think it’s rather silly for women to threaten one another with an act they incapable of preforming.
You and I Darlin, are only Ladies on the pundit. I thing Babushka is really a man.
Laura Said:
You unhinged moron, this is a quote from Keli-A, not me.
And wash your mouth with soap: your mother is blushing with shame.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/04/11/report-analysis-finds-that-trump-has-given-0-of-personal-cash-to-charity-despite-claims-otherwise/
EVERYTHING this degenerate says is a lie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKS3WXR2dqY
Laura Said:
he supports Israel because it fits in with his christian view of end of times.
You and I both know that Cruz would not be supportive of his daughter converting to orthodox judaism to marry an orthodox Jew. Not that its important as an issue but we have been debating on many trivial issues here.
babushka Said:
So true. They will not be deterred by the facts.
babushka Said:
he has clearly stated what he means by what he says and does. He is the only one who ansers most of my specific listed priorities satisfactorily and clearly. I have no problem with understanding what trump says and does on Israel with regard to neutrality, mediation, fault, deals, and blame. You are apparently all bogged down in his saying that he would be a neutral mediator. I cant help you to learn how to assemble the various things he has said and done on Israel to get what he said. You focus on one sentence instead of the many he has said and done on israel. There is not problem with him acting in a nuetral fashion as a mediator while at the same time vetoing policies of the UN and his state dept on disproportionate response. I will bet that after being apprised of the full story on the settlements and YS that he will stop the US referring to it as illegitimate. On each issue with Israel he has responded reasonably. its probably becuase you dont understand how businessmen who get things done operate, you are too used to talkers.
@ Keli-A:
Cruz doesn’t have family members who have converted to Judaism, but supports Israel because he knows it is the morally right thing to do. This comes from the very Christian faith that you guys are mocking.
Laura Said:
Laura Said:
Keli-A is just following you advice.
babushka Said:
LOL, he created that free time by making himself the center of attention… he saved his campaign a lot of money and shows how the others can only spend money and still not get the support of the people
babushka Said:
not at all, Murdoch tried to down him for rubio and sicked kelly and the rest on him… but murdoch failed and he and kelly were brought to heel by Trump showing that Trump is capable of overcoming tough adversaries and winning.
babushka Said:
-the guy who said that peace is almost impossible because the pals teach their children to hate the Jews is 100% accurate
-the guy who said he can walk away from the deal if both sides cant agree is 100% desirable, because all others need a deal for their political resumes.
-the guy who said that talk of “disproportionate response” is meaningless when folks fire rockets at you is right on and will not do what obama and the GOP have done on that issue
– the guy who said he must be a neutral mediator who does not force the sides with his desires is 100% correct in spite of clueless fools not getting what a mediator is.
-the guys whose Israel advisers are orthodox Jews and writers for Arutz sheva cannot possibly have a neutral perspective
the problem is that you need an education of the accepted role of a mediator and how a mediator can be neutral in a mediation while holding an opinion outside the mediation. Israel has had enough of brokers who bring their opinion to the table which always forces Israel to bow. Donald does not need a deal, any deal. It is folks like you who intentionally character assassinate a friend of Jews and Israel that end up causing hatred of Jews. Your man Cruz would not have accepted the conversion of his daughter to Judaism so positively.
@ Keli-A😮
You are an anti-Christian bigot. I’d take a bible thumper any day over that bloated fascist left wing, crony capitalist swindler.
@ babushka:
http://stablescoop.horseradionetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/uglyhorse.gif
@ Avigail:
You can go fuck YOURSELF or perhaps your man crush, trump.
Facts do not matter to those who have partaken of the Kool Aid. Do not listen to what he said. Listen to what he meant. And since he is tabula rasa, a blank slate upon which his ignorant supporters author their own fantasies, what he means is whatever they want him to mean.
Consider if you will how many vials of crack cocaine had to be ingested for creation of the highlighted sentence immediately above. Trump has received unprecedented free time from the media ESTABLISHMENT estimated to be worth $2 billion. He is being relentlessly promoted by the (open borders) Murdoch media empire. Karl Rove and the (open borders) Fortune 500 are now backing him.
But in the kaleidoscopic phantasm of the mentally obtuse, Trump is a lonely warrior fighting the oligarchy on behalf of the peasants. It is a breathtaking level of stupidity, accompanied by the standard arrogance of the clueless.
Trump was right about one thing and only one thing: his supporters are so demented that if he committed mass murder their devotion to him would only grow stronger.
@ Laura:
duh… he will take a nuetral position in the role of a mediator becuase mediators must be nuetral… he understands that if he does not say that he will be rejected as a mediator.. duhhh again… being a nuetral mediator who gives no opinions during the mediation process in no way means that he is nuetral on who is responsible. You just are ignorant and uneducated… try to read up on what a mediator does. Frankly it is impossible to teach someone certain basics if they are clueless. the bottom line is that assuming a nuetral role as mediator is not the same as being nuetral on the issue. I bet you still dont understand why that is so.
@ Laura:
I already explained it over and over.. he is not nuetral on Israel, he stated a peace is almost impossible because the pals teach their children hatred of the Jews, it is not necessary to make a deal, “disproportionate response” is irrelevant when rockets are fired at your civilians, all his Israel advisors are orthodox jews and writers for Arutz sheva… DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
you folks are really dense, he used nuetral in relation to the role of a mediator…. you folks just dont understand what he means and why he does it that way… there is no accounting for ignorance and idiocy after something is clarified over and over.
@ bernard ross:
Trump himself has said he will take a neutral position.
Donald has already made great contributions with his candidacy by bringing the corruption in the political process to the attention of the public. Murdoch and kelly have been brought to heel by Donald and that is a tribute to his methods of how to deal with liars and frauds and bring them to heel. He has dealt with all the media, the establishment and messed up their agenda… even if he loses he is tuning them upside down.
@ babushka:
what is interesting about all your posts on Trump is that you avoid ALL the substantive factual issues and concentrate on character assasination and lies… you know they are lies but you spread them anyway. Dont worry, the folks buying your lies will never get their man into the presidency because hardly more than a few folks will elect as their president an “anointed one”
The GOP like you wants to distract with red herrings from their nation destroying policies of the TPP, muslim immigration, firing american workers and replacing with foreigners, etc etc… thats why you and they never mention those truths.
babushka Said:
LOL, you are an incorrigible fraud… even in that video he said that an agreement is probably impossible becuase one side brings up their children to hate the other side…DUHHHHH? the term neutral was use wrt playing the role of a mediator. I understand that folks like you dont understand how both can be true but that is because you unlike him have probably never experienced the role of mediator which must be nuetral. You are just too dense to get it because you are ignorant of what a mediator is. A mediator can operate as a neutral but still not be nuetral…. guess you never knew that was possible, but then you are limited in your experiences.
Over and over again Donald has demonstrated that he is NOT neutral but you keep harping on his discussion of being a mediator brokering a deal… DUH, you need an education to understand.
babushka Said:
Another comment about your looks????
Whereas your comments apparently come from the horse’s ass.
Enough of you.
You been given months to write something coherent and you are just too defective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-3Iq3XQkAw
babushka Said:
Truth from the horse’s mouth.
babushka Said:
Ah threatening us with an sexual act which you are incapable of committing. Unless you are a male in drag.
Because I am so ugly that the sight of me turned you into a senile skank.
@ bernard ross:
Henny Youngman, Groucho Marxs and Harpo .
“Who is to blame for the Israeli-Palestinian dispute?”
“I don’t want to say. I want to be neutral.”
Well, then fuck you and fuck the worthless Jew-hating losers who support you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2G5qfeQnPI
@ babushka:
I can understand that comments about a women’s looks would upset you.