Pragmatism and ideology in President Trump’s foreign policy
Brian M Downing
Americans are wondering just what the Trump presidency will bring. So are people around the world – the poor of Central America, leaders of ISIL and al Qaeda, European publics and leaders, and the elites of China and Russia.
It’s widely assumed Trump’s foreign policy will be ill-conceived and reckless. During the long election campaign he displayed little understanding of the world and spoke rashly about using force and torture. Largely overlooked were his criticisms of serious missteps in recent years, in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.
More recently, he said he didn’t know who we were supporting in the Syrian civil war and suggested we might cut off support to them. This was widely interpreted as a sign of ignorance. It might be a sign of pragmatism – and of appreciation for the Middle East’s complex entanglements. This will nonetheless worry the foreign policy establishment which though experienced and articulate, has put together many of those serious missteps.
The establishment
Any president comes to office with powerful cultural and institutional pressures to maintain the status quo in foreign policy. Americans see their identity and mission as managing the affairs of the world and routinely intervening in it. The public wearies of the costs from time time, but congress, think tanks, lobbying outfits, the military, and intelligence bureaus are geared to involvement in the world. They are adroit at rekindling public ardor for intervention.
Politicians favoring less involvement are often seen as ignorant of realities, deferent to dictators and terrorists, and lacking the toughness of forbears and rival candidates. When in presidential debates Ron Paul, for example, advocated a lower profile in the world, he was looked at with bewilderment, condescension, and amusement.
Potential for change
The incoming president is unaware of the history of foreign policy and various schools of thought. He’s a businessman – more accustomed to buying tracts of land, hiring contractors, and staging PR events.
Disadvantages are obvious. A businessman will look upon foreign affairs, and interventionism in particular, in utilitarian terms. What benefits does a certain policy bring? How likely is it to succeed? What costs does it entail?
Candidate Trump was quick to note how I’ll-advised certain actions have been. Afghanistan, we were assured, would soon be a democracy supported by a modern economy rid of opium production. Iraq, it was confidently said, would be reworked in our image and then become a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. Libya would follow the same game plan.
All three enterprises failed. They cost trillions of dollars and over seven thousand lives. American national security has not increased. Islamist militancy has spread. Undertakings in Iraq and Syria, though serving short-term objectives of retaking territory from ISIL, are placing us in the middle of heated sectarian and ethnic hatreds.
* * *
Foreign policy must never be a for-profit undertaking. The returns are in less materialistic things such as greater security and advancement of our values. After so many missteps, this seems to have been lost.
Established security experts are calling colleagues and seeking names to forward their CVs to. There are many swamps to be drained in Washington, including the one centered in the lowlands at Foggy Bottom.
Copyright 2016 Brian M Downing
Brian M Downing is a national security analyst who has written for outlets across the political spectrum. He studied at Georgetown University and the University of Chicago, and did post-graduate work at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs.
–