By Rich Lowry
Monday, April 18, 2017
With U.S. missiles flying in Syria, the “mother of all
bombs” exploding in Afghanistan, and an aircraft-carrier strike group heading
toward North Korea, has there been a revolution in President Trump’s foreign
policy?
His most fervent supporters shouldn’t get overly
exercised and his interventionist critics shouldn’t get too excited. What has
been on offer so far is broadly consistent with the Jacksonian worldview that
is the core of Trump’s posture toward the world.
Trump’s views are obviously inchoate. He has an attitude
rather than a doctrine, and upon leaving office, he surely won’t, like Richard
Nixon, write a series of books on international affairs.
What we have learned since he took office is that Trump
is not an isolationist. At times, he’s sounded like one. His America First
slogan (inadvertently) harkened back to the movement to keep us out of World
War II. His outlandish questioning of the NATO alliance, an anchor of the West,
created the sense that he might be willing to overturn the foundations of the
post–World War II order.
This hasn’t come to pass. It’s not possible to be a truly
isolationist president of the United States in the 21st century unless you want
to spend all your time unspooling U.S. commitments and managing the resulting
disruption and crises. And such an approach would undercut the most consistent
element of Trump’s approach — namely strength.
His set-piece foreign-policy speeches during the campaign
were clear on this. “The world is most peaceful and most prosperous when
America is strongest,” he said last April at the Center for the National
Interest. “America will continue and continue forever to play the role of
peacemaker. We will always help save lives and indeed humanity itself, but to
play the role, we must make America strong again.”
In direct contradiction to isolationism, he said
repeatedly on the campaign trail that he would take the war to ISIS and build
up our defenses. He even called himself — in a malapropism — “the most
militaristic person you will ever meet.”
Now, there is no doubt that the Syrian strike is a
notable departure for Trump, and he defended it in unapologetically
humanitarian terms. But it’s entirely possible that the strike will only have
the narrow purpose of reestablishing a red line against the use of chemical
weapons in Syria and reasserting American credibility.
That is particularly important in the context of the
brewing showdown with North Korea, which he roughly forecast in his speech last
April. “President Obama watches helplessly as North Korea increases its
aggression and expands further and further with its nuclear reach,” Trump said,
advocating using economic pressure on China to “get them to do what they have
to do with North Korea, which is totally out of control.”
The Tomahawks in Syria and saber-rattling at North Korea
have Trump’s critics on the right and left claiming he’s becoming a
neoconservative — a term of abuse that is most poorly understood by the people
most inclined to use it. All neocons may be hawks, but not all hawks are
neocons, who are distinctive in their idealism and robust interventionism.
We haven’t heard paeans to democracy from Trump, or
clarion calls for human rights. He hasn’t seriously embraced regime change
anywhere (even if his foreign-policy officials say Assad has to go). He shows
no sign of a willingness to make a major commitment of U.S. ground troops
abroad.
Trump is a particular kind of hawk. The Jacksonian school
is inclined toward realism and reluctant to use force, except when a national
interest is clearly at stake. As historian Walter Russell Mead writes,
“Jacksonians believe that international life is and will remain both violent
and anarchic. The United States must be vigilant, strongly armed. Our diplomacy
must be cunning, forceful, and no more scrupulous than any other country’s.”
This tradition isn’t isolationist or neoconservative, and
neither is Trump.
No comments:
Post a Comment