What impact will the Trump presidency have on US foreign
policy, particularly the war against terrorism? In many parts of the world, there is deep
concern about what type of foreign policy Donald Trump will pursue, both among
allies and states opposed to the United State.
To get a sense of what US foreign policy will look like under Trump, and
its possible long-term consequences, I analyze 5 variables: ideology, temperament, military preparedness,
isolationism and economic policy/climate
change. Each of these variables
provides insights into the type of foreign policy Trump will follow, the extent
to which it will be successful, and its long-term consequences.
Ideology may be too
sophisticated a term to apply to Donald Trump in light of his superficial grasp
of foreign affairs, as he made clear during the recent US presidential campaign. I use this term to characterize Trump’s
world-view which is largely based on binary thinking and the resort to strong
measures to address problems which he finds threatening, whether domestically
or in the global arena.
By ideology, I include several dimensions. Let’s begin by examining Trump’s attitudes towards
minorities in the United States, whether they are Latinos, African-Americans,
Muslims, or disabled people. If we think
of his comments – which are all available on video – Trump has clearly provided
a trove of material for terrorist groups to use for propaganda purposes. Put differently, Trump has already provided
anti-American terrorist organizations with a powerful ideological weapon to use
for recruitment purposes and to legitimize their message of the threat against Islam posed by the
“Crusader West.”
Despite its all too frequent support for dictators in the Middle
East and elsewhere, the United States has never elected a president as
bellicose and pugnacious as Donald Trump.
The US will certainly lose what moral high ground it had under
President Barack Obama and make it much easier for groups like the al-Qacida,
the so-called Islamic State, and the repressive regime in Tehran to portray US
foreign policy as disingenuous and hypocritical.
Second, it is clear that Trump possesses few ideological
positions once he moves away from the business world. Trump has strong views on trade and the
impact of countries like China and Mexico on US trade, but little else. Trump’s ideology can be characterized as ill-formed
and one which views foreign affairs as isomorphic to business contracts. Everyone and every country has their “bottom
line.” If you can find the ”sweet spot”
where you and your competitor can meet after making mutual concessions, then a “deal” can be made. For Trump, this is how all problems in the international
arena can likewise be solved, by cutting a deal.
The lack of a developed political ideology, particularly one
concerned with foreign affairs, suggests that foreign policy will be delegated to as cadre of advisors who, like Dick Cheney et al. under George W. Bush,
will decide its final contours. The
argument that Trump does not have the ability to understand the complexities of
foreign affairs and will most likely be a “hands off” commander-in-chief is
underscored by the 20 words he uses most in his speeches (http://www.yourdictionary.com/slideshow/donald-trump-20-most-frequently-used-words.html)
If we add Trump’s personal disposition to this equation – an ill-formed ideology,
negative characterizations of minority groups, including Muslims, and a lack of
interest in foreign affairs - we encounter a
toxic mix. Taking Trump’s
characterization of Mexicans as “murders and rapists,” and stereotyping all
Muslims as potential terrorists is bad enough. However, adding these characterizations to his tendency
to become agitated and resort to his Twitter account whenever he feels
attacked, we can be sure that diplomacy will not be one of his strong suits. While he later backed off, the
President-Elect has already responded negatively to the numerous demonstrations
which have occurred since he won the presidency earlier this week.
Military policy is
closely related to the issues of ideology and temperament. Trump’s “tough guy”
approach to foreign affairs - a way of avoiding dealing with nuance and
complexity - will have a negative impact on US military policy and
readiness.
Trump’s emphasis on rebuilding US armed forces is based on outdated
understandings of both the threats which the US faces in the world today and
the best means to confront them.
Building more ships, which is one of the few specific policies he
outlined during the presidential campaign, will add little strategic value in
the struggle against terrorist groups.
Nor will building more sophisticated fighter aircraft, such as stealth
bombers, play a central role in that battle either.
What is needed above all is the development of new
strategies and military forces to meet the changes on the battlefield,
particularly those required to successfully engage in asymmetric warfare. Will the joints chiefs and respected military
planners convince Donald Trump to backtrack from his outdated vision of the US military? A more likely scenario will be Trump's desire to
appear “strong,” before his political base and Republicans in Congress who also
share his outdated notions of military preparedness.
The nature of asymmetric rather than conventional war
means the US needs to place greater emphasis on highly mobile military units
whose members have not only military but cultural and language proficiency. The problem with the Trump administration is
that it is not likely to emphasize these qualities. It was the lack of Arabic language speakers,
and officers, troops and CPA officials with knowledge of Iraqi society and culture,
which led to such a disaster after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Nor does Vice President-elect, Mike Pence, a former talk show
host, Congressman and Indiana governor, have much interest in or aptitude for
foreign policy. While the names of
Steven Hadley and former Intelligence House Chair Mike Rodgers for Secretary of
Defense suggest highly competent nominees, the new secretary will represent the
tip of the iceberg. He will not bring
the type of innovative and forward-looking foreign policy analysts to the Pentagon
which one would have expected in a Clinton administration. One of the causalities of the 2016
presidential elections will almost certainly be US foreign policy.
Isolationism will
certainly weigh heavily on a Trump administration. He will find little support among his political
base for active US involvement in foreign affairs. There will be no trade war with China because
it would be a costly blunder for the US.
Despite the bluster, there will not be mass deportations of undocumented
immigrants. The US Embassy in Israel may
be shifted from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and support for moderate Syrian rebels
fighting the Asad regime in Syria will most likely be eliminated.
NATO will no doubt be left untouched and
perhaps even largely neglected. Trump might elicit some modest concessions from Putin for
his administration’s lack of engagement with NATO and European affairs. This will certainly outrage some Neo-Cons
such as The Weekly Standard's William Kristol. However, the US
role in the world will almost certainly contract during the Trump years, which
is not a good sign for developing effective policies to use in the struggle
against terrorism in the MENA region, and in Eastern and sub-Saharan Africa.
The only area where I see Trump deviating from a
neo-isolationist strategy will be his ideological support for right wing anti-immigrant
governments and movements in Europe, e.g., Le Front National in France and the
Alternativ für Deutschland in Germany.
Already United Kingdom Independent Party leader Nigel Farage had paid
Trump a post-election visit at Trump Tower in New York.
Another foreign policy area where Trump may intervene is to
either amend or cancel the nuclear weapons agreement with Iran. Certainly, there are many Trump advisers who
feel that such a decision was fool hardy.
While the abrogation of the agreement may make Sunni Arab regimes, such
as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, more supportive of the United States, it
would most likely lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East with possible
devastating consequences.
Trump’s economic policy is closely linked to his views of
regulation and climate change. He
rejects government regulations and states that he doesn’t believe in climate
change. The Syrian uprising made clear the
extent to which climate change is affecting Middle East politics. Drought and Turkish dams, which severely cut
the flow of water in the Euphrates River, destroyed 175 Syrian villages and set
in motion peaceful demonstrations which were brutally suppressed by the Asad
regime, leading to the current civil war, with all its massive destruction, deaths and displacement of civilians.
Denying climate change, and thus refusing to see its
relationship to political instability, would be an especially damaging policy
in the MENA region where water is already a scarce commodity. With military planners not developing
contingencies for conflict caused by global warming, the Trump administration
will cause the US to fall behind in coping with the new global challenges of the
21st century.
Donald Trump’s presidency will be one in which foreign policy
is not a high priority. Many important
issue areas will either be ignored or given short shrift. The types of specialists who could bring new
and innovative policy perspectives to the State Department and the intelligence
community will not be attracted to the Trump administration.
New perspectives designed to quell conflict and encourage long-term
stability by deeper engagement with foes as well as allies will no doubt be
replaced by a foreign policy of “benign neglect.” The war against terrorism,
which requires a comprehensive and multi-faceted effort to eradicate the causes
which attract youth to extremist organizations, will suffer as a result. Increased global instability will be the
result of Trump’s presidency, not because of what he does as president, but what he doesn’t do.
